Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2264 (RAJ)

Uttam Polypacks Pvt. v. State of Rajasthan

2009-11-03

SANGEET LODHA

body2009
Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against the decision of the State Level Screening Committee dated 27.6.96, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of subsidy under the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme For Industries, 1990 ("the Scheme" hereinafter), as an unit set up by Non Resident Indians (NRIs) stands rejected. 2. The Scheme was introduced by the State Government with a view to accelerate the pace of industrial development in the State of Rajasthan. The rates at which new and eligible industrial unit set up in the areas specified to which the Scheme was made applicable were set out in clause 5 of the Scheme. As per item (v) of the Sub-clause (b) of the clause 5 of the Scheme, an eligible industrial unit set up by NRIs was made entitled for subsidy @ 20% of the eligible fixed capital investment as specified under the sub-clause (c) of the clause 4 of the Scheme or Rs. 35.00 lacs, whichever is less. By way of Explanation attached to clause 5, it was clarified that a unit set up by NRIs would mean an industrial unit in which NRIs have at least 40% equity brought in foreign exchange of the total equity of the industrial unit and that the equity brought in by NRIs in foreign exchange will not be transferable before a period of 5 years. The aforesaid clause relating to the eligibility of the industrial unit set up by the NRIs and the quantum of subsidy admissible under the Scheme has been amended time to time. 3. The amendments introduced in the Scheme which are germane to the controversy involved may be beneficially referred. 4. Vide notification dated 25.7.94 after item (ii) of the sub-clause (b) of the clause 5 of the Scheme, item (iv) & (v) with the Explanations were added as under:- "(iv) A unit set up by NRI (S) (v) A unit set up by overseas Corporate body. 20% of the eligible fixed capital Investment or Rs. 35.00 lacs Whichever is less. Explanation.-A unit set up by Non-Resident Indian(s) NRI (s) would mean an industrial unit in which atleast 40% equity brought in foreign exchange of the total equity of the industrial unit and that the equity brought in by Non-Resident Indian (s) NRS (s) in foreign exchange will not be transferable before a period of 5 years. Explanation.-A unit set up by Non-Resident Indian(s) NRI (s) would mean an industrial unit in which atleast 40% equity brought in foreign exchange of the total equity of the industrial unit and that the equity brought in by Non-Resident Indian (s) NRS (s) in foreign exchange will not be transferable before a period of 5 years. ......xxxxx........" The above amendments came into force with effect from 7.6.1994. 5. Thereafter, vide notification dated 8.3.95, items (iv) & (v) of the sub-clause (b) of the clause 5 of the Scheme, were substituted as follows:- "(iv) A unit set up by NRI (S) (v) A unit set up by overseas Corporate body. 20% of the eligible fixed capital Investment or Rs. 25.00 lacs Whichever is less. Explanation: (a) A Unit set up by Non Resident Indians (NRIs) would mean only a new Industrial unit in which non resident Indians (NRIs) have atleast 40% equity brought in foreign exchange out of the total equity of the industrial unit and such Non resident Indians (NRIs) are promoters of the new unit and the equity brought in by non resident Indians in foreign exchange will not be transferable before a period a period of 5 years. (b) A unit set up by the overseas Corporate Body shall mean only a new industrial unit in which the overseas Corporate Body has atleast 40% equity brought in foreign exchange out of the total equity of the industrial unit and such overseas corporate Body is a promoter of the new unit and the equity brought in foreign exchange by the overseas corporate Body will not be transferable before a period of 5 year." The amendment introduced as aforesaid was came into force w.e.f. 1.4.95. By said notification, it was further provided that the units having invested more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 would be eligible for subsidy at the rate prevailing prior prior to issue of the said notification. 6. Lastly, vide notification dated 22.9.97, by way of amendment of clause 4(d), the benefit of subsidy under the Scheme was restricted to eligible small scale industrial units and by substituting the existing clause 5, the quantum of subsidy available to the SSI units including NRIs units was also restricted to 15% of the eligible fixed capital investment or Rs. 15.00 lacs whichever is less. 15.00 lacs whichever is less. However, under the Explanation I attached to the clause 5, the requirement of the NRIs being promoters of the company stood deleted. The substituted Explanation I reads as under:- "A unit set up by non-residents Indian(s) (NRI(s) would mean an industrial unit in which Non-Resident Indian (s) (NRI(s) have atleast 40% equity brought in foreign exchange of the total equity of the industrial unit and that the equity brought by the Non-Resident Indian(s) (NRI(s) in foreign exchange will not be transferable before a period of 5 yeas." 7. The petitioner, a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 set up an industrial unit for manufacture of HDPE/PP woven Sacks and Box Strapping at Jodhpur. The industrial unit commenced its commercial production on 1.1.96. Out of the total equity of the petitioner company more than 40% equity was brought in foreign exchange by NRIs Mr. Shailesh Mehta and Mrs. Usha Mehta. The funds of Rs. 4,16,590.00, Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 3,00,000 were remitted by the above named NRIs on 27.9.95, 29.9.95 and 9.10.95 respectively. 8. The petitioner company having equity contribution by NRIs more than 40% as aforesaid applied for grant of subsidy under the Scheme vide application dated 17.1.96, as an unit set up by the NRIs. After scrutiny of the application, vide communication dated 30.3.96 sent by the Deputy Director, Industries, the petitioner was directed to furnish the information regarding the investment made upto 31.3.95 and the position of the equity contributions made by the NRIs. The requisite information was supplied by the petitioner vide communication dated 9.4.96. The application preferred by the petitioner for the grant of the subsidy as aforesaid was considered by the State Level Committee ("SLC") in its meeting held on 27.6.96 and a subsidy of Rs. 15 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as a new medium scale industrial unit in terms of sub-clause (a) of clause 5 of the Scheme, however, the petitioner's claim for the grant of subsidy as an unit set up by NRIs was rejected by the SLC on the ground that the unit did not fulfil the condition of making 50% investment before 31.3.95 and also on the ground that the NRI equity holders were not the promoters of the company. 9. The decision of the SLC sanctioning subsidy of Rs. 9. The decision of the SLC sanctioning subsidy of Rs. 15 lacs was communicated to the petitioner unit vide communication dated 10.8.96. The petitioner represented for release of balance subsidy of Rs. 10 lacs as an unit set up by NRIs in terms of item (v) of sub-clause (b) of clause 5 of the Scheme vide communication dated 11.3.97 but, to no avail. Hence, this petition. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the SLC has committed serious error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner company for grant of subsidy under the Scheme as an unit set up by NRIs. The learned counsel submitted that it is not in dispute that out of the total equity shares capital of the petitioner company amounting to Rs. 30 lacs, an amount of Rs. 12 lacs has been brought in by two NRIs Shri Shailesh Mehta and Smt. Usha Mehta, who have remitted such amount in foreign exchange and the petitioner's industrial unit has also furnished an undertaking that the equity shares owned by the NRIs shall not be transferred before a period of five years therefore, the petitioner unit fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of subsidy as an unit set up by NRIs. The learned counsel submitted that 40% equity in foreign exchange was brought in by the NRIs while the industrial unit was being set up, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the NRIs who has made the investment in equity shares as aforesaid are not the promoters of the company. 11. The learned counsel submitted that before issuing the notification dated 8.3.95, the condition of NRIs being promoters of the company was not there and thereafter, vide notification dated 22.9.97, the condition of NRIs being promoters of industrial unit stands deleted, therefore, there is absolutely no reason as to why for the intervening period, such condition should be insisted upon so as to deny the benefit of subsidy to the petitioner industrial unit and its likes. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan vs. Gopal Oil Mills & Anr." (1999) 115 STC, 25 and "State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Mahaveer Oil Industries & Ors.," (1999) Vol. 115 STC, 29. 12. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan vs. Gopal Oil Mills & Anr." (1999) 115 STC, 25 and "State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Mahaveer Oil Industries & Ors.," (1999) Vol. 115 STC, 29. 12. In the alternative, it is contended by the learned counsel that the condition of NRIs being promoter of the company added vide notification dated 8.3.95 cannot be applied retrospectively. It is submitted that the principles for promissory and equitable estoppel are attracted in the matter and the petitioner company which was incorporated on 26.5.94 and had taken all effective steps for setting up the industrial unit prior to 8.3.95 cannot be deprived of the benefit of subsidy available to it under the Scheme. 13. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in similar cases of M/s. Ajay Spinners, Bhilwara and M/s. Midland Polymers Limited, Bhiwadi, wherein the investment made by the NRIs was much after the incorporation of the company, the subsidy has been sanctioned and disbursed, as the units set up by NRIs. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in the matter of M/s. Midland Polymers in its 37th meeting held on 6.6.95, the SLC has specifically observed that the NRIs were not promoters of the company but since more than 50% of the project cost was invested by these industrial units prior to 31.3.95, therefore, they shall be governed by the previous notification of the Scheme and shall be eligible for subsidy of maximum Rs. 35.00 lacs on the basis of the investments. The SLC opined that the criteria of NRIs being promoters would not apply to such cases as the same has not been made applicable retrospectively. It is submitted by the learned counsel that if the condition of NRI being promoter is not applied to the cases where company has already been incorporated or registered then there is no reason as to why the benefit of subsidy is being denied to the petitioner on the ground that the NRIs who has brought in the equity in foreign exchange in the petitioner company are not the promoters of the company. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been unduly discriminated against. 14. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has been unduly discriminated against. 14. It is submitted by the learned counsel that denial of subsidy to the petitioner as an unit set up by the NRIs on the ground that the investment to the extent of 50% of the project cost has not been made prior to 31.3.95 is ex facie contrary to the provisions of the Scheme as amended vide notification dated 8.3.95. The learned counsel submitted that as per the said notification if the investment to the extent of 50% of the project cost is made by 31.3.95, the industrial unit set up by NRIs shall be entitled for the subsidy @ 20% or 35 lacs whichever is less. But, it does not deny the subsidy to the unit on this count altogether. The learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, by virtue of the amendment introduced vide notification dated 8.3.95, the units set up by NRIs which have not made the investment to the extent of 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 shall be entitled to subsidy @ 20% of the eligible fixed capital investment or Rs. 25 lacs, whichever is less. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the maximum subsidy admissible to the industrial units set up by the NRIs which have not made investment to the extent of 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95, stands reduced from Rs. 35.00 lacs to Rs. 25.00 lacs and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied subsidy at least to the extent of Rs. 25.00 lacs even in terms of the notification dated 8.3.95. 15. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the provisions for grant of higher subsidy to the industrial units set up by the NRIs has been incorporated to promote foreign exchange investment to ensure economic growth of the country and therefore, the relevant clause of the Scheme has to be construed liberally having regard to purpose and object to be achieved and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit by giving restricted meaning to sub-clause (b) of clause 5 of the Scheme. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU vs. Amara Raja Batteries Limited," 2009 (24) VAT & Service Tax Cases, 537. 16. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU vs. Amara Raja Batteries Limited," 2009 (24) VAT & Service Tax Cases, 537. 16. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the benefit of the subsidy extended under the Scheme cannot be claimed as a matter of right and therefore, if the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria for the grant of subsidy, no benefit can be extended by giving extended meaning to the terms and conditions incorporated under the Scheme. It is submitted that the petitioner industrial unit does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for grant of investment subsidy as an industrial unit set up by NRIs, in terms of clause 5(b) of the Scheme as amended vide notification dated 8.3.95. The learned counsel submitted that the investment by the NRIs in the equity shares in the company has not been made prior to 31.3.95 therefore, the petitioner company cannot claim the subsidy as an unit set up by the NRIs. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the NRIs who have made the investment in the company were admittedly not disclosed to be promoters of the company at the time of its incorporation and therefore, on the basis of the equity brought in by the NRIs subsequently, even to the extent of 40% of the total equity, they cannot be treated to be promoters of the company. Regarding the benefit extended to the other similarly situated industrial units referred to by the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel that as per notification dated 8.3.95 all those units wherein the equity is brought in foreign exchange by NRIs and the industrial unit has invested more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 are treated to be the unit set up by the NRI and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity vis-a-vis the industrial unit M/s. Ajay Spinners and M/s. Midland Polymers which had admittedly invested more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 and therefore, were entitled for subsidy in terms of the Scheme in force prior to the amendment introduced vide notification dated 8.3.95. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the decision of the SLC in rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy under the Scheme as an unit set up by NRIs cannot be faulted with. 17. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 18. Indisputably, the Scheme has been introduced by the State Government to accelerate the pace of industrial development in the State and for the reason the benefit of capital investment subsidy was extended to the new and eligible industrial unit set up in the selected districts/areas as specified under clause 3 of the Scheme. A bar perusal of clause 5(b) of the Scheme, it is abundantly clear that the provision for grant of higher subsidy to the eligible industrial units set up by NRIs is incorporated so as to encourage the investment in foreign exchange by the NRIs in the industrial units to be set up in the State of Rajasthan in the areas notified. 19. In Under Secretary Ministry of Industries & Ors. vs. Marchon Textile Inds (P.) Ltd. & Anr., (2005) 10 SCC 554 , while dealing with the question as to how the scheme floated by the State for grant of subsidy to industrial units to be set up in the backward areas to promote the growth of industries needs to be interpreted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:- "The scheme floated by the State releasing grant of subsidy for industrial units to be set up in certain selected backward districts/areas have a benevolent and public purpose to achieve, and that is, to promote the growth of industries in such districts/areas which but for the State encouragement would continue to remain backward and the industrial investment will not be attracted to such areas. Such schemes have to be construed with practical and pragmatic approach so as to achieve and not frustrate the purpose sought to be achieved. The benefit of the scheme ought to be allowed, if it an be done. The applications should not be dealt with a hyper technical approach or in a pedantic manner. Such schemes have to be construed with practical and pragmatic approach so as to achieve and not frustrate the purpose sought to be achieved. The benefit of the scheme ought to be allowed, if it an be done. The applications should not be dealt with a hyper technical approach or in a pedantic manner. If the application filed before the cut off date is substantially in order and satisfies the formalities expected of the scheme; then an opportunity should be allowed to the applicant to cure the defects which are not of substantial nature or are capable of being cured so that the deserving units are not felt out of the scheme." 20. Thus, the State Government having introduced the Scheme extending benefit of the subsidy to the industrial units setup in the backward areas so as to accelerate the pace of the industrial development in the State so also to invite the investment in foreign exchange by the NRIs, the provisions incorporated therein need to be construed having regard to the purpose and objects sought to be achieved. The State Government cannot be permitted to deny the benefit flowing from the Scheme to the industrial units by giving the restrictive meaning to eligibility clause which frustrates the objects sought to be achieved. 21. In this backdrop, it is to be noticed that as per the clause5 (b) of the Scheme originally introduced, an eligible industrial unit wherein an NRI has at least 40% of the equity brought in by him in foreign exchange of the total equity of the industrial unit was treated to be an industrial unit set up by NRIs eligible for subsidy @ 20% of eligible fixed capital investment subject to a maximum of Rs. 35 lacs. Admittedly, the petitioner company was incorporated on 26.5.94 and thereafter started taking up the effective steps for establishment of the industrial unit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of subsidy as an unit set up NRIs in terms of clause 5(b) of the Scheme as amended vide notification dated 25.7.94. Admittedly, the petitioner company was incorporated on 26.5.94 and thereafter started taking up the effective steps for establishment of the industrial unit. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company fulfills the eligibility criteria for grant of subsidy as an unit set up NRIs in terms of clause 5(b) of the Scheme as amended vide notification dated 25.7.94. However, the clause 5(b) of the Scheme was further amended vide notification dated 8.3.95 and it was notified that a unit set up by NRIs would mean only a new industrial unit in which NRIs has brought in the equity in foreign exchange 40% equity out of the total equity of the industrial unit, non transferable for a period of at least 5 years and such NRIs are promoters of the new unit. 22. A perusal of the decision of the SLC dated 27.6.96 reveals that the application of the petitioner industrial unit for grant of subsidy has been rejected on two grounds, firstly, the unit did not fulfill the condition of making 50% investment before 31.3.95 and secondly, the NRI equity holders of the industrial unit are not the promoters, obviously, keeping in view the amended clause 5(b) as introduced vide notification dated 8.3.95. 23. A perusal of the notification dated 8.3.95 makes it abundantly clear that it nowhere provides for the eligibility condition that so as to claim the benefit of subsidy under the Scheme, the industrial unit must have made the investment to the extent of 50%of the project cost by 31.3.95. As a matter of fact, vide aforesaid notification amending the clause 4 of sub-clause (b) of clause 5 the quantum of maximum subsidy admissible to the units set up by NRIs has been reduced from 35 lacs to 25 lacs. Therefore, in terms of the amended provision, the eligible industrial unit set up by the NRIs are entitled to subsidy to the extent of 20% of eligible fixed capital investment or Rs. 25 lacs whichever is less. However, it has been further clarified that the units having invested more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 would be eligible for subsidy at the rate prior to issue of the said notification. 25 lacs whichever is less. However, it has been further clarified that the units having invested more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 would be eligible for subsidy at the rate prior to issue of the said notification. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that by virtue of notification dated 8.3.95 the benefit of subsidy under the Scheme admissible to the eligible industrial unit set up by NRI stands restricted to only those industrial unit which has made investment more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95. To say the least, the interpretation of the contents of the notification referred supra by the SLC is absolutely misconceived. As a matter of fact, in terms of the notification, the industrial unit set up by NRIs eligible for grant of subsidy under the Scheme which has not made the investment more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 shall be entitled to subsidy to the extent of 20% of the eligible fixed capital investment or Rs. 25 lacs whichever is less. Suffice it to say that the said notification in no manner debars any industrial unit set up by the NRIs from the benefit of the subsidy under the Scheme altogether if the investment more than 50% of the project cost has not been made before the date of coming into force of the provisions contained in notification dated 8.3.95 i.e. 1.4.95. Thus, the rejection of the petitioner's claim for subsidy on the ground that it has not invested more than 50% of the project cost before 31.3.95 is ex facie contrary to the provisions of the Scheme as amended vide notification dated 8.3.95. 24. Coming to the question of the NRIs being promoters of the company, it is to be noticed that in the Scheme originally introduced, the condition of NRIs being promoters of the company was not there. It is not disputed before this Court that the aforesaid condition incorporated in the Scheme vide notification dated 8.3.95 was not made applicable to some of the industrial units such as M/s. Midland Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Ajay Spinners Ltd. Bhilwara on the ground that the criterion of NRIs being promoter shall not apply to the industrial units who have invested more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 inasmuch as, the said criterion has not been made applicable retros-pectively. As discussed above, the notification dated 8.3.95 nowhere provides that so as to fulfill the eligibility criteria for grant of subsidy under the Scheme, the industrial unit concerned must have made investment more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95. The investment more than 50% of the project cost by 31.3.95 is relevant only for determination of the quantum of subsidy and it cannot be treated to be an eligibility condition for the grant of subsidy. Thus, if the other industrial unit wherein the NRI investors were not treated to be promoters of the new unit have been extended the benefit of subsidy under the Scheme as the units set up by NRIs on the basis that the amendment introduced cannot be made applicable retrospectively then, the petitioner industrial unit which is similarly situated qua these industrial units cannot be denied the benefit of the Scheme on the ground that the NRIs who have brought equity in foreign exchange are not the promoters of the company. 25. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Indisputably, the provisions for grant of subsidy at the higher rate to the industrial unit set up by NRIs has been incorporated to encourage the investment in foreign exchange by the NRIs. The condition of the NRIs being promoters was not there in the Scheme till the issuance of the notification dated 8.3.95 and admittedly, the said condition stands deleted vide notification dated 22.9.97. On being pointedly asked by this Court, as to what was the reason for enforcing such condition only during the intervening period 8.3.95 to 22.9.97 and how the incorporation of such condition during the said period was in furtherance of the purpose and objects sought to be achieved by the Scheme, the learned Additional Government Counsel had no answer. 26. In Gopal Oil Mills's case (supra), where the question involved was with regard to the withdrawal of the benefit of incentive scheme under the Central Sales Tax Act introduced by the State Government to certain industries for a limited period from 7.5.90 to 26.7.91, the Hon'ble Apex Court after due consideration observed:- "3. In view of the limited question, as indicated earlier, the point for consideration is whether the action of withdrawing the benefit under the Central Sales Tax Act by the notification dated May 7, 1990, found to be invalid by the High Court, is assailable. In view of the limited question, as indicated earlier, the point for consideration is whether the action of withdrawing the benefit under the Central Sales Tax Act by the notification dated May 7, 1990, found to be invalid by the High Court, is assailable. In our opinion, that part of the High Court's judgment does not call for any interference. The mere fact that action was taken to restore that benefit once again w.e.f. July 26, 1991 much prior to delivery of the judgment by the High Court on January 12, 1993 is a strong indication of the absence of any public interest to support withdrawal of that concession. Moreover, the State Government has been unable to support that action and to indicate that the withdrawal of the benefit was in public interest only for the limited period between May 7, 1990 and July 26, 1991 in so far as it relates to withdrawal of the benefit granted earlier under the Central Sales Tax Act.... xxx.... 27. In this view of the matter, the insistence for enforcement of the aforesaid condition of NRIs being promoters of the company for the limited period runs contrary to the purpose and object of the scheme and therefore, cannot be countenanced by this Court. 28. Further, the word "promoter" has not been defined in the scheme or for that matter under the Companies Act, 1956. Admittedly, the NRI have brought in the equity to the extent of 40% of the total equity of the petitioner company during the setting up of the industrial unit much before it started its commercial production. Thus, having regard to the purpose and object of the Scheme there is no reason as to why the NRIs who have been brought in the equity in the petitioner company during the setting up period of the industrial unit should not be treated to be promoter of the industrial unit within the meaning of the word "promoter" used in explanation to cl. 5(b) of the Scheme. 29. In view of the discussion above, viewed from any angle, the impugned decision of the SLC refusing to grant the benefit of subsidy to the petitioner industrial unit as an unit set up by NRIs is not sustainable in the eye of law. 30. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. 5(b) of the Scheme. 29. In view of the discussion above, viewed from any angle, the impugned decision of the SLC refusing to grant the benefit of subsidy to the petitioner industrial unit as an unit set up by NRIs is not sustainable in the eye of law. 30. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned decision of the SLC dated 27.6.96 communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 10.8.96 is quashed and set aside. The State Level Committee is directed to consider the application of the petitioner unit for grant of subsidy as an unit set up by NRIs within a period of two months from the date the certified copy of this order is placed before it. The benefit of additional subsidy for which the petitioner is found entitled shall be disbursed within a period of one months from the date of decision of the SLC in terms of the directions issued as aforesaid. No order as to costs.