Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 435 (RAJ)

Murliwala Agrotech Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-10

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-The petitioner is aggrieved against the denial of benefit of subsidy scheme to the petitioner for which the respondent has passed order on 19.8.2000. The only ground for denial is that the petitioner purchased the machinery on the basis of lease-agreement and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the subsidy as the petitioner has not purchased the machinery. According to the order dated 19.8.2000, the person who has not purchased the machinery and taken the machinery on lease is not entitled for the subsidy benefit. The petitioner has placed on record the lease agreement dated 19.1996 wherein it is provided that the title to the extrusion equipment vesting in the transferor will stand transferred in favour of the transferee-lessee petitioner after expiry of three years from the date of execution of the agreement. 2. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner acquired the title to the property before the order dated 19.8.2000 and the respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing rejected the claim of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not submit his case before the authorities. Though he initially purchased the machinery on the basis of the lease-agreement but, in fact, the said lease-agreement is in fact a hire-purchase agreement and after three years it culminated into sale in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is clear from the facts referred above that the petitioner could not submit his case before the concerned authorities because no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the order dated 19.8.2000. In view of the above, the order dated 19.8.2000 so far as it relates to the petitioner deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the concerned authority who may decide afresh the case of the petitioner for subsidy after taking on record the documents placed by the petitioner before the said authority. In case the petitioner is found entitled to the subsidy the same relief may be granted to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of placing certified copy of this order before the concerned authority. If the concerned authority finds that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of subsidy a reasoned order may be passed. 4. The writ petition of the petitioner is allowed in the terms mentioned above.