Madras High Court
B.Ramalingar vs The Secretary To Government on 7 September, 2016
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 07.09.2016 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam Writ Petition No.21680 of 2005 B.Ramalingar rep. by its Proprietor, Shri Lakshmi Narayana Rice Mill ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Industries and Commerce, Forst St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2. The Director of Industries and Commerce, Office of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 3. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Vellore- 6 ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the second respondent made in his proceedings in R.C.No.31706/LC-3/2003, dated 13.06.2003, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to disburse the State Capital Subsidy already sanctioned to the petitioner by the second respondent on 18.05.2000. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Chandra Raj For Respondents : Mr.K.J.Sivakumar Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard Mr.N.Chandra Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.K.J.Sivakumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the second respondent, in rejecting the petitioner's claim for subsidy.
3. The petitioner's case is solely based on the inspection caused by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Vellore, who has inspected the petitioner's Mill, for the purpose of sanction of State Capital Subsidy. However, from the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is seen that, entitlement of subsidy for any Unit located in the industrially backward/most backward is governed by the guidelines issued by the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.562, Industries (SIC) Department, dated 19.08.1989, wherein, it has been clearly specified that, in respect of Units assisted by financial Institutions, Banks, the date of financial tie up, is crucial for entitlement of subsidy. Sofar as the petitioner's case is concerned, they have taken effective steps for financial tie up with the Bank only on 09.11.1998, which is after the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.21 Small Industries Department, dated 15.04.1998, stopping the subsidy for conventional and resource based industries.
4. Thus, the grant of subsidy was negatived by the second respondent, by the impugned proceedings.
5. In the considered view of this Court, subsidy cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Furthermore, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, is not the competent Authority, who can sanction the State Capital Subsidy, and it is a policy decision of the Government with a view to encourage the set up of industries in backward and most backward area, and the Government has taken a policy decision, dated 15.04.1998, stopping the subsidy for conventional and resource based industries. Admittedly, the petitioner is engaged in the activity of hulling of paddy and crushing of ground nuts, on job work basis.
6. Thus, when the scheme was unavailable on the crucial date, i.e., the date on which, financial tie up was obtained by the petitioner, there can be no vested right for the petitioner to claim subsidy. Further, it is pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner-Mill has obtained taxation only as house, and not taxation under industrial class, and the plan approved, was also only for house, which was later found altered as an Industry.
7. Thus, for the above reasons, no relief could be granted. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
07.09.2016 sd Index : yes/no To
1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Industries and Commerce, Forst St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of Industries and Commerce, Office of the Director of Industries and Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Vellore- 6 T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
sd Writ Petition No.21680 of 2005 07.09.2016