Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1333 (GAU)

Jyoti Food & Proteins v. Union of India

2015-10-13

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India. Mr. M. Dutta, the learned advocate appears for the respondent No.3 while the two State respondents are represented by Mr. J. Handique, the learned Government Advocate. 2. The petitioner is a partnership concern and has set up a wheat milling unit at Barbheti, Haibargaon in Nagaon District. Since the unit is located in a notified backward area and commenced commercial production w.e.f. 17.9.1997, they claim the benefit under the Transport Subsidy Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) [Annexure-A], notified by the Central Government. The Scheme was initially made operational from 5.12.1977 till 31.3.2000 but subsequently the benefits under the Scheme was extended for another 7 years up to 31.3.2007, through the O.M. dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure-B). 3. Under Clause 6 of the Scheme, transport subsidy is payable to eligible industrial unit in respect of raw material brought from Siliguri to the site of the unit and also on the transport of finished product from the unit till its movement upto Siliguri. The Director of Industries is expected to scrutinize the claim and arrange payment of transport subsidy and under Sub-Clause (xiv) of Clause 6, the claims are expected to be made on quarterly basis but the Director of Industries at his discretion can entertain more numbers of claims in a financial year, depending up the financial position of the industrial unit. 4.1 On 8.12.2003, three claims for transport subsidy for the period 1.4.2001 – 30.6.2001, 1.7.2001 – 30.9.2001 and 1.10.2001 – 31.12.2001 respectively was made by the petitioner to the General Manager of the District Industries & Commerce Centre and the petitioner’s request for acceptance of the delayed claim was approved by the Director of Industries & Commerce as can be seen from the endorsement made on the petitioner’s application dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure-F). The said endorsement being relevant is extracted herein for ready reference : “As per approval of Directorate of Industries and Commerce the claim is accepted and delay in submission is condoned and accepted” 4.2 For the 3 quarters in question from 1.4.2001 – 31.12.2001, the petitioner’s claim towards transport subsidy was quantified and the General Manager of the District Industries & Commerce Centre, Nagaon through his communication dated 26.12.2003 (Annexure-G) recommended the transport subsidy claim for the petitioner unit. The State Level Committee (SLC) in its meeting of 31.3.2004 (Annexure-H) considered the proposal for transport subsidy for various units and the claim for the petitioner’s unit for the period 1.4.2001 – 31.12.2001 for Rs.13,36,806/- was approved by the SLC upon due deliberation. 5. However on the basis of the report submitted by the 4th Pre-Audit Team, the transport subsidy claim recommended for the petitioner was rejected as time barred, by the respondents. 6.1 Assailing the legality of the decision to deny the transport subsidy, Mr. O.P. Bhati, the learned Counsel refers to the Scheme to argue that time limit was never prescribed for lodging of claim by an eligible unit and therefor the logic of the decision to treat the claim as time barred, is questioned by the petitioner’s lawyer. 6.2 Referring to the pivotal role of the Director of Industries under Clause 6(xiv) of the Scheme, Mr Bhati argues that since the Director had approved the petitioner’s belated claim, the same should have been cleared by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion of the Union Commerce Ministry, particularly when the genuineness of the claim is not being question by any of the scrutinizing agencies. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned ASG submits that since the claim for the period 1.4.2001 – 31.12.2001 was raised only on 8.12.2003, the claim is time barred and according to the learned Counsel the belated approach must be taken into account to consider the transport subsidy claim of otherwise an eligible unit. 8. Representing the NEDFi authorities, Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed on 23.3.2010 to contend that the Pre- Audit Team was deputed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and it is their observation that the claim is time barred. 8. Representing the NEDFi authorities, Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed on 23.3.2010 to contend that the Pre- Audit Team was deputed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and it is their observation that the claim is time barred. Therefore the NEDFi lawyer contends that unless the transport subsidy claim is cleared by the DIPP and necessary funds are released, the NEDFi can’t disburse the amount claimed by the petitioner unit. 9. In Ishwar Food Products Private Limited vs. The Union of India reported in this Court was examining a belated claim of transport subsidy and in this Court’s judgment, the following observation was made by the learned Judge : 17. The Transport Subsidy Scheme is a part of the Government initiative to encourage industrialisation in what are called lesser developed regions of the country and thereby accelerate economic development of such areas. Objective of such scheme being beneficial, reasonable and liberal approach is required to be taken while implementing such scheme. Of course, the implementing agencies have to be alert to ensure that bogus or stale claims are not entertained. This Court understands that the time limit of one year prescribed by the authorities for grant of transport subsidy is for administrative convenience and to eliminate belated claims or claims which are not genuine. This time limit of one year, as prescribed, is not an inflexible rule and is capable of suitable relaxation in appropriate situations. 18. Coming back to the case in hand, it is clear from the pleadings and the stand taken by the respondents that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive transport subsidy is not disputed. The objection only the ground of delay. However, in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the claim was initially submitted on 14-11-2005 there was no delay in submission of the claim of transport subsidy by the petitioner for the period in question except for the period 01.07.2004 to 30.09.2004, for which period there was delay of about one and half months. With the above observation relief was granted in the above case. 10. When no time limit is prescribed under the Scheme for lodging of claim for transport subsidy, the description of any claim as time barred must have some rational basis. With the above observation relief was granted in the above case. 10. When no time limit is prescribed under the Scheme for lodging of claim for transport subsidy, the description of any claim as time barred must have some rational basis. Refusal to entertain bogus or stale claim can be understandable but the rejection of claim on the basis of time barred observation made by the Pre-Audit Team, doesn’t appear to be logical particularly when, the Director of Industries & Commerce had condoned the delayed approach and accepted the claim made by the petitioner on 8.12.2003. That apart, the SLC for transport subsidy had also recommended the petitioner’s claim for the period 1.4.2001 to 31.12.2001, without considering the same to be time barred. 11. As per the procedure for entertaining of claim for transport subsidy, the claim is first considered by the SLC and on the basis of their recommendation, the same is forwarded to the Nodal Agency i.e NEDFi for disbursement of subsidy for the industrial units in the North East Region. The claim papers are then scrutinized by the DIPP of the Union Commerce Ministry, who after final verification, issues direction to the NEDFi, for release of the subsidy amount, subject to availability of funds. 12. In my understanding, the scrutiny of the concerned agencies relate to genuineness of the claim and if a claim is found to be bona fide presented within reasonable time of the same becoming due, the entertainment of the claim should be the norm. Only when stale or non-genuine claims are raised, those can be rejected by the authorities. However when the claim of an eligible unit is approved by the SLC and the claim is not considered to be time barred by the Director of Industries & Commerce, the non-acceptance of the petitioner’s claim for transport subsidy is found to be irrational and unjustified. 13. In view of above, this writ petition stands allowed by directing the respondents to release the transport subsidy amount of the petitioner as may be found due, for the 3 quarters i.e. 1.4.2001 – 30.6.2001, 1.7.2001 – 30.9.2001 and 1.10.2001 – 31.12.2001 respectively, by adhering to the prescribed norms and the exercise is ordered to be completed within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The relief is accordingly granted in these terms by leaving the parties to bear their respective cost.