Jharkhand High Court
Shri Rani Sati Foods And Grains Private ... vs Industry Department on 21 November, 2014
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 5948 of 2013
Vaishnavi Ferro Tech (P) Limited ... Petitioner (S)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi & Ors. ... Respondent (S)
With
W.P. (C) No. 5436 of 2013
Sri Rani Sati Foods & Grains Private Limited,
Ranchi through its Director ... Petitioner (S)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi & Ors. ... Respondent (S)
With
W.P. (C) No. 5761 of 2013
M/s Jharkhand Plastics (P), Ranchi
through its Director ... Petitioner (S)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi & Ors. ... Respondent (S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioner (S) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
[in WP(C) No. 5948 of 2013]
: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
[WP(C) Nos. 5436/2013 & 5761/2013]
For the Respondent (S) : Mr. Rajesh Shankar, G.A.
[in WP(C) No. 5948 of 2013]
: Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G
Ms. Debolina Sen Hirani, J.C. to A.A.G.
[WP(C) Nos. 5436/2013 & 5761/2013]
C.A.V. on 11/11/2014 Pronounced on 21/11/2014
At the outset, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned
2
counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, "the
determination of date of actual commercial production", is the
main issue involved in all the writ petitions and therefore, all
the writ petitions may be heard together. With the consent of
the counsel appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand, all
the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by a
common order.
FACTS:
W.P.(C) No. 5948 of 2013
2. The petitionerVaishnavi Ferro Tech (P) Limited
intending to establish Ingots Plant applied for electricity
connection for 30 HP LT IS connection. Vide letter dated
11.02.2009, it was sanctioned electricity connection and the HP connection was started on 09.02.2011. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh, on the basis of the examination of papers and inspection report by a team of technical officers of District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh concluded that, the Unit has gone into commercial production on 15.02.2011. Vide letter dated 22.07.2011, the petitioner applied for capital subsidy of Rs. 25 Lacs and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh vide letter dated 02.08.2011 recommended to the Director, Industries for grant of incentive of Rs. 25 Lacs. Thereafter, the petitioner 3 submitted application dated 13.09.2011 for interest subsidy for Financial Year, 201011 and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh vide letter dated 24.10.2011 recommended interest subsidy to the tune of Rs. 587467/. However, vide letter dated 10.08.2013, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh directed the petitioner to submit application for deciding the "date of commercial production" afresh. The petitioner made representation on 29.08.2013 however, vide order dated 26.03.2014 the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh recalled/annulled letter dated 28.04.2011 whereby the "date of commercial production" was fixed as 15.02.2011. FACTS:
W.P.(C) No. 5436 of 2013
3. The petitionerM/s Rani Sati Foods and Grains Private Limited submitted statutory acknowledgment in terms of Section 8 of the Micro Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (M.S.M.E.D., Act 2006) expressing its intent to set up a Rice Mill at Ranchi. The acknowledgment in part (I) was issued to the petitioner on 13.08.2009. It also submitted application dated 19.08.2009 under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The 4 petitionerIndustry commenced commercial production in its Rice Mills from 12.10.2010. The petitioner was issued import and export license on 26.08.2009, license under the Factories Act, 1948 on 07.07.2010 and a license under the Jharkhand Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 2000 on 07.10.2010. The electricity connection was granted and electric meter was installed on 20.07.2010. The petitionerIndustry had conducted certain trial production between JulySeptember, 2010. The Joint Capacity Assessment Report dated 01.07.2011 records the date of commencement of production as 12.10.2010 and vide letter dated 22.03.2012 the Director, Industries ordered sanction of Rs. 599.39 Lacs as capital subsidy to the petitioner Industry. In the meantime, the petitioner had submitted application dated 14.03.2012 for fixing the "date of commercial production" and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi vide certificate dated 20.06.2012 fixed the "date of commercial production" as 02.05.2011. The petitioner objected to the same and submitted representation dated 23.08.2012 to the Director, Industries who treated the representation dated 23.08.2012 of the petitioner as an appeal being Appeal Case No. 06/UN Misc (Hearing) - 56 of 2012.
Vide memo dated 06.05.2013, the letter dated 20.06.2012 whereby the "date of commercial production" was fixed as 5 02.05.2011 was annulled and the matter was remanded to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi for deciding the "date of commercial production" in the light of Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012.
FACTS:
W.P.(C) No. 5761 of 2013
4. The petitionerM/s Jharkhand Plastics (P) Limited submitted statutory acknowledgment in terms of Section 8 of M.S.M.E.D, Act 2006 and it also applied for necessary permission under Water and Air, Act on 22.02.2010. It was granted license under the Factories Act on 29.06.2010 and the electric meter was installed on 23.08.2010. The petitionerUnit commenced commercial production of plastic chairs from 21.10.2010. The petitionerIndustry was given order for supply of 2300 chairs vide letter dated 01.02.2011 which it did supply and raised invoice dated 05.02.2011. The acknowledgment in part (II) under the M.S.M.E.D. Act, 2006 records the "date of commercial production" as 21.10.2010. The application for grant of capital subsidy was processed by the State Level Committee and a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs was sanctioned to the petitionerUnit which is evident from letter dated 23.03.2012 issued by the respondent no. 2. The Jharkhand Pollution Control Board issued "consent to establish" vide memo dated 6 16.06.2011 though, the application was submitted on 22.02.2010 itself. However, vide letter dated 20.06.2012, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi fixed the "date of commercial production" as 18.07.2011 against which the petitioner submitted his representation dated 20.07.2012 to the Director, Industries. The Director, Industries erroneously treated the representation dated 20.07.2012 as appeal and initiated Appeal Case No. 06/UN Misc (Hearing) - 55 of 2012.
Vide order dated 27.04.2013 the order passed by the General Manager, on 20.06.2012 fixing the "date of commercial production" as 18.07.2011 was setaside and the matter was remanded to him. A further direction has been issued to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi for fixing the "date of commercial production" in the light of Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012.
5. The respondentState of Jharkhand has filed counteraffidavit in all the matters stating that, while scrutinising various applications submitted for grant of subsidy, it was found that many industries had started their operation without obtaining mandatory "consent to operate" from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. The WaterAct and the AirAct mandates that before an industry starts its operation, it must have "consent to operate" order. A "consent to operate" 7
order cannot be issued permitting an industry to operate from a retrospective date. Clause 3 (1) to the "consent to establish"
clearly mandates that;
"The proponent shall obtained consent to operate from the State Pollution Control Board under Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 prior to commissioning of the plant".
6. The petitionerUnit could not have started its commercial production, prior to issue of "consent to operate". The Director, Department of Industries, in view of the instructions issued by the Secretary, Department of Industries, directed the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh to conduct necessary enquiry. During the effective period, the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012 was inforce and therefore, the "date of commercial production" and grant of Interest Subsidy have to be decided in the light of Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012. The petitioners' unit are not permitted in law to start commercial production before obtaining all necessary statutory clearances. The capital subsidy was wrongly paid to the industry and the department is taking steps in accordance with law to recover the said amount.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the Parties
7. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel 8 appearing in W.P.(C) No. 5948 of 2013 raised the following contentions:
(i) Once a "certificate of commercial production" is issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh, it has to be taken as a conclusive proof of the "date of actual commercial production" of the industry and on the basis of the letter of "consent to operate" issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, the "date of actual commercial production" of the industry cannot be decided.
(ii) In terms of Section 25 (7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the "consent to operate" is deemed to be issued after lapse of four months from the date of submission of the application seeking grant of "consent to operate" and therefore, from such date the industry should be deemed to have commenced its "actual commercial production".
(iii) Once a part of benefit under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 is granted to an industry, the consequential benefit cannot be denied because the rights which have already concretised cannot be altered subsequently.
(iv) The provisions of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 which manifests the decision of the Government of Jharkhand cannot be altered or modified by the Secretary of the Department of Industries.9
(v) In view of the collateral evidences produced by the industry the "date of actual commercial production" claimed by the industry cannot be doubted and in the absence of any specific guidelines/circular for determining the "date of actual commercial production", the claim of the industry, if supported by documentary evidence, has to be accepted for deciding the date of "actual commercial production".
8. Per contra Mr. Rajesh Shankar, the learned GovernmentAdvocate appearing for the respondentState of Jhakrhand has contended that in case of a dispute with respect to the "date of actual commercial production", the decision of the Director, Industries is final. The certificate of "commercial production" dated 28.04.2011 does not specifically record that the industry has commenced "actual commercial production"
from 15.02.2011. The documents produced by the petitioner in the present proceeding are contradicting each other and infact, demonstrate that the industry did not commence its "actual commercial production" with effect from 15.02.2011. The electricity bills produced by the company for the months of February, 2011 conclusively establish that the industry had not started its "commercial production" with effect from 15.02.2011. Before an industry starts its "actual commercial production", it begins with trial production which cannot be 10 considered "actual commercial production". The Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 as well as the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012 specifically require that the benefit under the Industrial Policy can be granted only from the date of "actual commercial production" and since, the petitioner started its commercial production only after 01.04.2011, the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012 is applicable in its case. An industry is required to submit an application before the department for determining the "date of actual commercial production". Notices were issued to the petitionercompany in this regard and it was directed to produce documents however, the company did not produce any material in support of its claim that the industry has commenced "actual commercial production" with effect from 15.02.2011. An industry is not supposed to commence production without valid licenses and clearances. It is further submitted that the deeming provision under Section 25 (7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 cannot be considered for deciding the "actual date of commercial production". Moreover, the provision under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 presupposes an application complete in all respects whereas, it appears that vide letter dated 01.04.2011 the petitionerindustry was directed to comply with certain conditions and thus, its 11 application was not complete in all respect. Three of the conditions in letter dated 01.04.2011 are mentioned in letter dated 19.05.2011 whereby "consent to operate" was granted to the industry and thus, the deeming provision is not applicable in this case and it cannot be contended that the industry could have commenced its production from 15.02.2011.
9. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned counsel appearing in W.P.(C) No. 5436 of 2013 and 5761 of 2013 adopted the argument of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate and submitted that a subsequent change in the Government Policy cannot be made effective with a retrospective date. Once benefit under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 has been granted to the industry, while processing the claim for consequential benefit, the provisions of Industrial Policy, 2012 cannot be applied by the Department. The grant of certificate/clearance from the State Pollution Control Board is a different aspect altogether and it cannot be assumed that before the "consent to operate" is granted to the industry, it was not in operation. It is common knowledge that grant of certificate/clearance from the Pollution Control Board takes longer time and an industry which has invested huge sum of money cannot wait to start its production till the requisite certificate/clearance is granted by the Pollution Control Board. 12 There is no specific policy, on the basis of which the "date of actual commercial Production" has to be decided and therefore, the claim of the industry, if corroborated by contemporaneous documents, must be accepted.
10. It is submitted that in case of M/s Jharkhand Plastics (P) Limited it is a matter of record that vide letter dated 01.02.2011, the company was given contract for supply of plastic chairs which it did supply however, the respondents have declined to recognise the "date of actual commercial production" as claimed by the industry. The "consent to operate" dated 26.11.2011 records that the petitioner had submitted its application way back on 18.07.2011 itself and the Joint Capacity Assessment Report specifically records the date of commencement of production as 21.10.2010 and therefore, there is no reason to dispute the "date of actual commercial production" of the petitionercompany with effect from 21.10.2010.
11. As against the above contention, Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral, appearing for the State of Jharkhand reiterated the stand taken in the counteraffidavit which is similar in all the writ petitions. He submits that, though M/s Plastic (P) Limited has stated that it has supplied plastic chairs however, it has not produced any evidence that 13 those chairs were manufactured in its unit. The learned Additional AdvocateGeneral has reaffirmed the argument of Mr. Rajesh Shankar, the learned GovernmentAdvocate who appeared in in W.P.(C) No. 5948 of 2013.
DISCUSSIONS:
12. The resolution of the Government of Jharkhand pursuant to which Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 was formulated indicates that the object was to optimally utilise the available resources of the State in a planned manner and to accelerate the industrial development of the State. The introduction to the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 states that, "the State is committed to create an environment conducive to growth of industries in the State and it is determined to encourage investment in the industries based upon the State's agroclimatic, mineral and manpower resources as also in development of infrastructure. It is indicated that the Government is committed to create a friendly atmosphere for industrial growth in the State. The Industrial Policy aims at making Jharkhand one of the most preferred destination for investment, both from inside and outside the country. The Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 has also addressed the issue of "commercial tax reforms".
13. The Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 recognises a 14 dire need for the new born State of Jharkhand to accelerate industrialisation in the background of lost opportunities and non realisation of its industrial potential. Under Clause 29.2 the following incentives have been offered to a unit:
1. "Capital Investiment Incentive
2. Captive Power Generating Subsidy
3. Interest Subsidy
4. Stamp Duty and Registration
5. Employment Generation Based Incentives
6. Special Incentives for Thrust Areas/EOU and SC/ST/Women/ExServicement and Handicapped Persons
7. Feasibility StudyProject Report Cost Reimbursement Subsidy
8. Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy
9. Incentive for Quality Certification"
14. Clause 29.5 which deals with Interest Subsidy provides that the Interest Subsidy shall be admissible for a period of 5 years for all categories of industries from the "date of commercial production". The date of production has been defined to mean the date on which the unit actually started commercial production of the item for which the unit has been registered. It is provided that, in case of a SSI Unit, the 15 certificate issued by the respective General Manager, District Industries Centre or General Manager, Industrial Area Development Authority will be accepted as the date of production however, in case of any dispute in the date of production, decision of the Director of Industries in this regard shall be final.
15. It is in the above background that a dispute with respect to the "actual date of commercial production" of the petitioners' unit has arisen. It is common ground that, there is no binding guidelines/circular/notification which can be said to be the guiding factor for taking a decision with respect to the "date of actual commercial production".
16. The plea taken by the respondentState of Jharkhand that the date of issuance of letter of "consent to operate" would be the date from which an industry would be deemed to have commenced its "actual commercial production" is untenable. The deeming provision under Section 25(6) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has been incorporated to avoid a situation in which an industry may be ready for production however, if the industry starts production without valid environmental clearance, the industry may be prosecuted for violating the environmental laws. Merely because the letter of "consent to operate" has been issued 16 subsequently, that is, after the lapse of 4 months' period from the date of application, it would not lead to an inference that the industry has started its "actual commercial production" only from the date "consent to operate" was issued or thereafter. Such an interpretation may lead to further confusion in the system because there may be a situation in which an industry may produce a clinching evidence of its "actual date of production", which is prior to the date of "consent to operate". However, I may hasten to add that the validity period indicated in the "consent to operate", that is, the date from which an industry is permitted to operate which undoubtedly would be a date prior to the date of issue of "consent to operate", cannot be the sole factor for deciding the "date of actual commercial production" of the industry. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitionerVaishnavi Ferro Tech (P) Limited relied on decision in "State of Bihar and others Vs. Suprabhat Steel Ltd. and Others" reported in (1999) 1 SCC 31 and in "State of Orissa and Others Vs. Tata Sponge Iron Ltd." reported in (2007) 8 SCC 189 and submitted that if a circular/guideline is found to be repugnant to Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001, the same cannot be given effect to. I find that the instruction contained in letter dated 22.05.2012 of the Secretary, Department of Industries and other letters, not to fix 17 the "date of commercial production" prior to the date of first "consent to operate" does not indicate any rational basis and therefore, the first "consent to operate" cannot form the basis for fixing the "date of commercial production". Such a direction/guideline would also contravene the provisions of Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001. Similarly, the electricity bill or the sale invoices/sale letter etc. also cannot be the sole conclusive evidence to decide the "date of actual commercial production".
17. The Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012 was notified in the Official Gazette vide Memo dated 16.06.2012 and it was made effective from 01.04.2011. Under the New Industrial Policy, several incentives to a New Industrial Unit has been provided however, the "Interest Subsidy" which was given under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001, was taken away in the new policy and "reimbursement of 60% of net VAT" has been provided. Relying on the decision in "Mahavir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana" reported in (2006) 3 SCC 620, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned counsel has contended that the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012 cannot be made applicable in case of the petitioners rather, the petitioners are entitled for Interest Subsidy as provided under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent 18 State of Jharkhand has contended that since it has been found, as a fact that petitioners' Unit started actual production after 31.03.2011, they are not entitled for benefit under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001.
18. In so far as, the grant of incentives under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 are concerned, I find that it has nowhere been stipulated that an industry would be entitled for incentives under the 2001Policy only after it commences its "actual commercial production". Of course, for "Interest Subsidy" it is provided that the benefit would be available for 5 years from the "date of actual commercial production". Now, if the admissibility of the incentives under 2001Policy are to relate to the "date of actual commercial production", it may lead to an absurd situation. For example, in case of "capital investment incentive", there is no stipulation that it would be available only from the "date of actual commercial production". And, there may be a case in which an industry had already made capital investment, though the Unit has not commenced even trial production and in the meantime, the Government takes a decision to change the policy or implements a new policy. If in such a situation, the benefit under the old policy is denied to the industry, it would certainly be violating the objective of the previous industrial policy. The State's action 19 would certainly be not only contrary to "fair play in action", it must be directed to fulfill promises held out under the old Policy. In "Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P." reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409,
8. "............The true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have been taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any preexisting relationship between the parties or not."
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that Industrial Policy2001 is applicable in case of the petitioners.
20. In W.P.(C) No. 5948 of 2013, the petitioner has assailed order dated 10.08.2013 and 26.03.2014 both, passed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh. Vide letter dated 10.08.2013 M/S Vaishnavi Ferro Tech (P) Limited was directed to submit relevant documents for deciding the "date of actual commercial production". The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh issued the said direction in view of letter no. 2158 dated 23.07.2013 and letter 20 no. 2132 dated 07.07.2012 whereunder, an instruction has been issued to treat the "date of actual commercial production" from the date of issue of first "consent to operate". Vide letter dated 26.03.2014, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh, has already quashed the letter dated 28.04.2011 and therefore, the challenge to letter dated 10.08.2013 and letter dated 26.03.2014 would be considered together. In so far as, order dated 26.03.2014 is concerned, it appears that letter dated 28.04.2011 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh has been quashed in view of the first "consent to operate" granted to the industry which was issued on 19.05.2011. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, the reason assigned in order dated 26.03.2014 is not sustainable in law. However, it is made clear that the petitionerindustry cannot object to the decision taken by the Department to determine the "date of actual commercial production" of the industry. The petitioner industry which has availed capital investment incentive and which has further claimed interest subsidy is under a duty to provide all necessary evidences for deciding the "date of actual commercial production" and therefor, to that extent there is no infirmity in order dated 26.03.2014.
21. In W.P.(C) Nos. 5436 of 2013 and 5761 of 2013, 21 order dated 20.06.2012 of the General Manager whereby the "date of commercial production" of the petitionerUnit has been fixed with reference to the validity period, that is, the period in the "consent to operate" for which the said order has been made operative. The Director Industries vide order dated 06.05.2013 quashed the said order dated 20.06.2012. In view of the discussions in earlier paragraphs, I am of the opinion that, to that extent, there is no infirmity in order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Director, Industries. However, it is also made clear that the date of "consent to operate" cannot be the criteria, if not admitted by an industry, to fix the "date of commercial production". The further grievance of the petitioner is that, the Director, Industries has held that the "date of commercial production" of the petitionerUnit should be determined with reference to Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012. In view of the discussion in the forgoing paragraphs, order dated 06.05.2013 is quashed, to the extent it directs the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi to take a decision afresh, in the light of Jharkhand Industrial Policy2012.
22. The Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 provides that, the certificate of commercial production issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre would be treated as the "date of commercial production" of the industry however, in 22 case of a dispute, the decision of the Director, Industries would be final and binding on the parties. The facts pleaded in the present proceeding disclose that the General Manager, District Industries Centre, on his own or on the direction of the Director, Industries has reviewed the "certificate of commercial production". The Director, Industries, has also ordered that "the date of commercial production" of the petitionerindustries should be determined afresh. No doubt, a mistake can be corrected at any stage. In "V.S.N.L Vs. Ajit Kumar Kar and Others" reported in (2008) 11 SCC 591, it has been held that, a bonafide mistake does not confer any right on any party and it can be corrected. In "Union of India and Another Vs. Narendra Singh" reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750 it has been held thus,
32. "It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR v. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules."
23. However, it is to be kept in mind that, there should be consistency in the decision of the Government and therefore, the past transactions should not be reopened unless, it is found 23 that serious illegality has been committed while granting benefit under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001. I find that under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001 the Director, Industries is the final authority, in case of a dispute, as to the "date of commercial production". Since the issue involved in the present writ petitions would affect a large number of industries in the State of Jharkhand, a guideline which may provide for submission of list of documents, is required to be issued by the Director, Industries, State of Jharkhand. A decision with respect to the present writ petitioners also may be taken within a period of three months by the Director, Industries, State of Jharkhand. While deciding the issue, the Director, Industries is directed to keep in mind the objective of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy2001. The writ petitions are partly allowed, in the above terms.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi dated 21/11 /2014 Amit/A.F.R