Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 220 (PAT)

Prabha Electrocastings Pvt. Ltd v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-24

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. As prayed, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the nature of subsidy demanded for in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for direction to the Respondents to release and disburse the amount of power subsidy for the remaining period i.e. August, 1998 to April, 2000 in their favour in terms of Bihar Industrial Policy, 1993 . 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per paragraph 6 of the policy industrial units coming into production between 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998 and units defined under expansion and diversification are entitled to get power subsidy for five years from the date of production/of such expansion/diversification at the rate mentioned in the said column. According to him, the petitioning company started its production in May, 1995 which has also been accepted by the Respondents in Annexure-2 series whereby subsidy has been allowed from 7th May, 1995 till July, 1998. As such, according to the learned counsel, petitioner is entitled for subsidy as claimed in the writ petition, but, the same has been arbitrarily kept withheld by the Secretary, Department of industries, Government of Bihar (Respondent no. 2) now for over four to six years. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary in which it is stated that the policy was valid only for five years i.e. 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998, and, as such, the petitioner-unit is entitled for subsidy only for the period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998, but the subsidy claimed for the subsequent period is not admissible. 5. I failed to appreciate the said stand of Respondent no. 2. Paragraph 6 of 1993 policy is very clear and provides that industrial units coming into production from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998 and units defined under expansion and diversification will get the incentive mentioned therein for five years from the date of production/of such expansion/diversification. In view of the admitted position that the petitioning unit started its production in May, 1995 and received subsidy up to July, 1998 vide Annexure-2 series, learned counsel for the State has not been able to defend the said stand of Respondent no. 2. He fairly submitted that even according to the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied of subsidy for five years from the date of production. 2. He fairly submitted that even according to the law laid down by this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied of subsidy for five years from the date of production. Thus; it is evident that the action of Respondent no. 2 is wholly arbitrary and malafide. It is really unfortunate that industry is made to suffer on account of non-compliance of the promise made under such policy, which results in industries going into debts and finally closure of the unit itself. This only shows callousness on the part of Respondent no. 2 in dealing with such claim, as is evident from the facts of the present case itself that despite service of notice of this writ petition on 10.4.2002 the Respondent no. 2 instead of redressing the grievance of the petitioner has contested the claim on flimsy ground. Thus, this Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding heavy cost to be paid by the Secretary, Department of Industries from his pocket besides interest @ 10% per annum on the remaining subsidy amount. 6. Writ application is, accordingly, allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to be paid by the Secretary, Department of Industries from his pocket. Respondent no. 2 is directed to release the remaining subsidy amount and pay the same with interest @ 10% per annum and cost within two weeks, failing which the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for initiating appropriate action.