Jharkhand High Court
M/S Sundaram Ferro Tech. Pvt.L vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 31 January, 2011
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5173 of 2010
---
M/s Sundaram Ferro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through its
Secretary, Industries Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi & others Respondents
---
CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Mukhopadhaya, SC-II
---
3.31.01.2011I.A. No. 203/2011 Heard.
This I.A. shall form part of the writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 5173/2010
2. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though, the delay of 30 days in making claim of interest subsidy for 2007-08 was explained properly, but the same was not properly considered by the respondents. He further submitted that the claim for interest subsidy for the year 2008-09 was made within time i.e. on 16.07.2009, but the respondents have rejected that claim also on the ground of delay calculating it from the date of forwarding of such claim by the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Giridih on 17.07.2010 to the Director, Industries. He further submitted that the claim of the sister concern of the petitioner M/s Satyam Ferro-Tech Ltd. was made on 16.09.2009 and was forwarded by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Giridih to the Director, Industries, Jharkhand on 29.1.2010, but such claim was treated within time. So far as the claim for the year 2009-10 is concerned, respondents have admitted that the same was within time. He lastly submitted that this matter is fully covered by the order dated 19.01.2011 passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 2129/2010 and 2141/2010.
3. Mr. Mukhopadhaya, learned counsel appearing for the State, by referring to the impugned order, submitted that no reason for delay in filing the claim was shown by the petitioner for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
4. After going through the records and hearing the parties, I am satisfied that there was proper explanation of delay of 30 days in filing the claim for interest subsidy for the year 2007-08 which should have been condoned by the concerned authority. It also appears that the claim of interest subsidy for the year 2008-09 was filed within time but it is wrongly rejected, taking the date on which it was forwarded. So far as the claim for 2009-10 is concerned, respondents themselves have admitted that this was filed within time. Further, this case is fully covered by the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2129/2010 and W.P.(C) No. 2141/2010 on 19.1.2011.
5. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-18) is set aside. Respondents are directed to process the claims for interest subsidy of the petitioner for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 and disburse the legally payable claims as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(R.K. Merathia, J) Ranjeet/