Bombay High Court
M/S Prerna Stone Crusher Thr. Its Prop. M ... vs The Govt. Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secty. ... on 18 March, 2016
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.N. Deshmukh
1 wp137.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.137 OF 2015
M/s. Prerna Stone Crusher,
through its Proprietor,
Shri Mahendra Jagdishprasad
Tardeja, Registered Office,
at Prerna Agency, near
Nagar Palika, Akot, District
Akola. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Government of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Ministry of
Industries, Energy and Labour
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Additional Commissioner of
Industries, Opposite Mantralaya,
Colaba, Mumbai.
3) The Joint Director of Industries,
Regional Office of Industries,
Amravati.
4) The General Manager, District
Industrial Centre, Akola. ... Respondents
----------------
Shri A.B. Moon, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:27:15 :::
2 wp137.15
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 18, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2) Submission of Adv. Moon for petitioner is that petitioner, which was registered as a small scale industry, has been given advantage of a package incentive scheme formulated on 30/3/2007 by Government of Maharashtra. As per that scheme, petitioner is entitled to royalty refund on purchase of minerals from mines owners within State of Maharashtra for a period of five years. The petitioner commenced production in the year 2010-11 and has been given that refund for the said year. However, for later years, it has not been released on totally erroneous and arbitrary grounds. He submits that ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:27:15 ::: 3 wp137.15 corrigendum issued on 29/8/2012 is on interest subsidy, which has got no bearing on the matter. The Circular dated 17/6/2011, which refers to discussion dated 8/2/2011, for the first time defines royalty and essentially co-relates it with major minerals. As petitioner does not require and use major minerals, the royalty refund appears to have been declined.
3) Adv. Moon contends that thus a provision not in force when petitioner started its unit has been made applicable to deny petitioner the benefit of incentive scheme. He is relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others (AIR 1979 SC 621) and order dated 9/1/2014 of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5801/2012 to urge that such withdrawal is legally unsustainable. The principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation are attracted and the incentive scheme cannot be modified retrospectively.
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:27:15 :::4 wp137.15
4) Shri Lonare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents, on the other hand, relies upon reply affidavit. He submits that State Government has later on found it necessary to co-relate royalty refund with use of major minerals and hence, petitioner unit, which uses minor minerals, cannot be given royalty refund.
5) It is not in dispute that position has been brought about by Circular dated 17/6/2011. The basic Circular is on issue of royalty refund only and it refers to incentive scheme of 2007. The incentive scheme of 2007 is laid down by Government Resolution dated 30/3/2007. Admittedly, in that scheme, royalty refund is dealt by Clause 5.5, which reads thus :
"5.5 Royalty Refund :
All eligible units, new as well as units undertaking expansion in Vidarbha region will be eligible for refund of royalty paid on purchase of minerals from mine owners within ::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:27:15 ::: 5 wp137.15 the State of Maharashtra for a period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial production."
That clause, therefore, does not restrict refund of royalty only for major minerals.
6) As petitioner has been permitted to start its unit on the basis of package incentive scheme of 2007 as prescribed by Government Resolution dated 30/3/2007, without appropriately modifying that Government Resolution and that too retrospectively, petitioner cannot be denied benefit of royalty benefit.
In fact, petitioner has been refunded royalty for the first year, i.e. 2010-11.
7) In this situation, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 29/8/2012 and direct respondents to refund to petitioner the royalty in terms of Clause 5.5 of package incentive scheme of 2007 within three months from today.
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:27:15 :::6 wp137.15
8) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:27:15 :::