Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 62 (HP)

DURHA MACHINES PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF H. P.

2005-03-22

K.C.SOOD, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body2005
JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J. (Oral) - Petitioners M/s. Durha Machines Private Ltd. approached the Department of Industries in March, 1988 for setting up a Unit for manufacture of Electronics components. The Unit was registered and certified of registration was issued on 2nd May, 1988. Petitioners submitted an application for the grant of 25% Central Investment Subsidy on 15th June, 1989. The aforesaid, subsidy was recommended by the State Level Committee on 8th August, 1989 amounting to Rs. 41.15 lacs. This recommendation was made in ignorance to the fact that the "Central Investment Subsidy" stood withdrawn by the Government of India w.e.f. 1st October, 1988. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioners company set up the- Unit in the backward area of Himachal Pradesh taking in consideration that "Central Investment Subsidy" was available in that area. On account of non-release of the subsidy, the petitioners company has suffered losses and their debts accumulated to Rs. 2.25 crores. 3. It appears, the petitioners earlier also filed a Civil Writ Petition (CWP No. 1555 of 95). This Court vide its order dated 5th November, 1997 directed the petitioners to make a representation to the State Government within four weeks and on such representation being made, the State Government was to constitute a State Level Committee, if not already constituted, to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for grant of Central Investment Subsidy within six weeks thereafter. 4. The State Government considered the representation of the petitioners Company and concluded that the petitioners Company and concluded that the petitioners Company was not entitled to "Central Investment Subsidy" as the Scheme for the grant of Central Investment Subsidy had been withdrawn by the Government of Indian on the date when the petitioner Company applied for such subsidy. 5. Still aggrieved, the petitioners are in this petition. It is admitted position before us that the petitioners moved necessary application for grant of Central Investment Subsidy on 15th June, 1989 whereas the Scheme for grant of Central Investment Subsidy stood withdrawn w.e.f. 1st October, 1988. 6. As the question raised is squarely covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Umesha Textile and another v. Union of India and another, Civil Appeal No. 6240 of 1994 and along with connected matters, therefore, we need not go into the details. 7. 6. As the question raised is squarely covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Umesha Textile and another v. Union of India and another, Civil Appeal No. 6240 of 1994 and along with connected matters, therefore, we need not go into the details. 7. The Government of India introduced a Scheme of 10% Central grant or subsidy for Industrial Units to be set up in certain selected backward districts/areas with a view to promote the growth of Industries in the backward District/areas. The aforesaid Scheme was introduced by a Notification dated 26th August, 1971 and was amended from time to time. This Scheme was withdrawn by the Government of India w.e.f. 1st October, 1988. Some of the Industries approached the Honble Supreme Court in Umesha Textile and another (supra) and connected matters, saying that these industries were not disbursed the subsidy, to which they were entitled to under the Scheme of 1971. The Apex Court without going into the details, directed all the concerned Industries to make representation before Mrs. Pratibha Karan, the then Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry under Department of Industrial Development, either jointly or severally within three weeks from that date. The representation was directed to be decided within eight weeks thereafter. Their Lordships clarified that it would be open to Mrs. Karan to take into consideration the 1971 Scheme, as modified from time to time. She was directed to place the decision before the Court within one week of its announcement. 8. Pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court, Mrs. Karan passed an order on the representation of the various Industrial Units on 16th November, 1995. Mrs. Karan fixed the cut off date for entitlement of subsidy as 30th September, 1988. In this context, their Lordships observed :- "We are of the view that so far as the cut off date is concerned, the Joint Secretary has taken a fair and just stand. We agree with her that all the applications filed up to September 30, 1988 should be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy provided the said applications were complete in terms of the scheme dated August 26, 1971 as modified from time to time. All the applications filed before September 30, 1988 may be considered for grant of the Central Investment Subsidy provided the applications were complete, in all respects, under the Scheme." 9. All the applications filed before September 30, 1988 may be considered for grant of the Central Investment Subsidy provided the applications were complete, in all respects, under the Scheme." 9. In the present case, admittedly the application for grant of Central Investment Subsidy was filed by the petitioners company in the year 1989; much after the cut off date of September, 30, 1988. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of the Government, rejecting the representation of the petitioners for grant of Central Investment Subsidy. 10. Dismissed. 11. No costs.