Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pg (Bma Stainless Ltd. & Anr vs West Bengal on 27 June, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
36 27.06.2014 W.P.17953(W) of 2014
pg (BMA Stainless Ltd. & Anr. vs. West Bengal
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.)
Mr. L.K. Gupta
Mr. Shyamal Sarkar
Mr. Rajesh Gupta
Mr. Bilwadal Bhattacharya
Ms. Dolon Dasgupta
Mr. Snehashis Sen.......for the petitioners
Mr. Rudra Sankar De
Mr. Anuran Samanta....for the West Bengal Industrial
Development Corporation
Limited
This writ petition is directed against the order
dated May 22, 2014 issued by the Executive Director,
West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited
(hereafter the 'WBIDCL'). By the said order the petitioners
have been called upon to refund excess amount of
incentive that was paid to the first petitioner under West
Bengal Incentive Scheme⎯ 2004.
Various issues have been raised by Mr.
Gupta, learned senior advocate for the petitioners. I need
not examine all such issues at this stage except one. It
pertains to a grievance voiced by the petitioners to the
effect that the executive director had taken into
consideration an intimation received from the Director of
Electricity Duty, Government of West Bengal conveying to
the WBIDCL that the petitioners had availed of
Rs.13,31,56,610/- on account of waiver of electricity duty
from the Damodar Valley Corporation (hereafter 'D.V.C.').
According to Mr. Gupta, the petitioners do not
2
admit the said amount and if only the calculations were
provided earlier, the petitioners could have persuaded the
executive director to hold in their favour. The contents of
paragraph 31 of the writ petition have been referred to by
Mr. Gupta, in this connection.
Per Contra, Mr. De, learned advocate
appearing for the WBIDCL submitted, on instructions,
that the intimation received by the Directorate of
Electricity Duty from the D.V.C. in regard to the year-wise
total waiver amount availed of by the petitioners from the
D.V.C. was made available to the petitioners prior to the
impugned order being passed. However, on a specific
query raised by the Court as to whether there is any proof
regarding receipt of such calculation by the petitioners,
Mr. De could not readily refer to any document.
I am of the view that inviting the respondents
to file their affidavit-in-opposition would only delay a decision on the claim of the WBIDCL that the petitioners owe in excess of Rs. 679.85 lakh.
Interest of justice would be best served if the writ petition is disposed of at this stage with suitable directions. I, accordingly, direct as follows:
(i) The demand for refund of excess amount of Rs. 679.85 lakh stands set aside, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the WBIDCL to claim the same amount in future, if occasion therefor arises, in terms of this order;3
(ii) Since Mr. De has handed over the letter of the D.V.C. dated February 11, 2014 together with all its annexures containing the calculation to Mr. Gupta in Court today, the petitioners shall have a week's time to represent thereagainst;
(iii) within a week from date of receipt of the representation from the petitioners, the executive director shall put the petitioners on notice for attending a personal hearing;
(iv) upon hearing the petitioners, the executive director shall pass a fresh order as the circumstances warrant.
It is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to raise all points that are available to them in law before the executive director and the latter shall not look into any document without supplying a copy thereof to the petitioners.
If the claim of the petitioners deserves acceptance, follow up steps in accordance with law shall be taken without delay. On the contrary, if they are not found entitled to any relief, a reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to them.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made by the petitioners are 4 deemed not to have been admitted by the WBIDCL.
The bunch of documents produced by Mr. De shall be retained with the records.
There shall be no order as to costs Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.
(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)