Bombay High Court
Supertech Forgings (I) Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 29 March, 2019
Author: A.M. Dhavale
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, A.M. Dhavale
1 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NOS. 2651 OF 2012
Supertech Forgings (I) Pvt. Ltd.
Company Registered as per Companies
Act, 1956 Having Registered Office at
J-489 & 490, M.I.D.C. Bhosari, Pune
Through its Manager
Mahesh Chandrashekhar Salakke
Age : 36 years, Occu : Service,
R/o: Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Post Kada, Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed ...The Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary for
Ministry for Consumer Affairs,
Public Distribution Department of Food
and Public Distribution Room No.279,
Krushi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001
2. Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
9, Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce
Lane, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 ...The Respondents
Mr. P.V. Barde, Counsel for Petitioner
Mr. S.B. Deshpande for Respondent No. 1 ( Assistant Solicitor General)
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 (with Mr. V.R.
Dhorde, Counsel)
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
2 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4499 OF 2016
Sahakar Maharshi Bhausaheb Thorat
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
Amrutnagar, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar
Through its Managing Director
Jagannath S/o Bhaurao Ghugarkar
Age : 55 years, Occu : Service,
R/o Amrutnagar, Sangamner,
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar ...The Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through its Under Secretary,
Ministry for Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public Distribution,
(Department of Food and Public Distribution)
Directorate of Sugar,
Krushi Bhawan, New Delhi
2. The Chief Director
Department of Food and Public
Distribution, Directorate of Sugar,
Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi
3. The Director (Sugar Development Fund),
Department of Food and Public
Distribution, Directorate of Sugar,
Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi. ...The Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
3 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel for Petitioner (with Mr. V.R. Dhorde,
Counsel)
Mr. S.B. Deshpande for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ( Assistant Solicitor
General)
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 04.02.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.03.2019
JUDGMENT :(Per : A.M. Dhavale, J. )
1. The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions assail the orders of rejection of their claim for subsidy on export of sugar.
2. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no dispute that the petitioner is a Co-operative Society manufacturing sugar and exporting the same as per the Sugar Development Fund Act, 1982 (SDF Act) and Rules hereunder and as per policies declared by the respondents. In March, August and September, 2008, the petitioner exported sugar and they were entitled to get subsidy by way of export assistance payable to the sugarcane growers @ Rs.1350/- per metric tonne for coastal area and Rs. 1450/- per metric tonne for non-coastal area. They followed the provisions of law and submitted the bills as per the chart below :-
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
4 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
Sr.No. Month Quantity in Subsidy Date of Date of Days Metric Tonne Amount Last BRC Claim / claimed Receipt Date 1 March, 08 3999 5398650 09/09/08 30-09-08 21 07-10-08 28 Revised March-08 2623 3541050 09/09/08 16-01-09 129 April-08 1376 21-01-09 134 2 August-08 5307.55 7165192 30/12/08 (on) 27.01.09 28 Revised 5527 7462192 27-02-09 59 13-03-09 73 3 Sept.-08 104.45 141007 01/11/08 21-01-09 82 27-01-09 88
3. The respondents rejected the claim of March, 2008 on the ground that it was submitted beyond limitation, whereas the claims for August and September, 2008 were not decided at all. All the claims were made by the petitioners in time along with all the necessary certificates, but the petitioners were instructed to submit the revised claims. Revised claims were also submitted but those were either rejected or not decided. It is argued that the petitioners were compelled to file Writ Petition No. 7269/2014 and as per the order of this Court, the claims were considered and by order dated 08.12.2014, they were wrongly rejected for the grounds non existing. These grounds were even not disclosed earlier while rejecting the claim for March, 2008. The condition that mate receipt should be filed was not in the rules or in the circulars and was never informed to the petitioners. All the mate receipts were produced. The rejection is contrary to the provisions of law and it should be set aside and the claims should be allowed.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
5 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
4. Mr. Dhorde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no policy communicated to sugar factories that claims would be allowed only to the extent of 60 lakh metric tonnes. The policy was to allow all claims in which the goods were exported before 30 th September, 2008. The petitioners had submitted claims in proper manner within time but the respondents directed them to submit revised claims. The claims were not time barred. The respondents should have acted as representatives of social welfare State as subsidy amount was going to be distributed to the sugarcane growers. Grant of subsidy is a right and is not incentive or charity. It is mandatory and not discretionary. It is granted from funds raised from the sugarcane growers and sugar factories.
5. Mr. S.B.Deshpande, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that as per order dated 8 th December, 2014, the claims were rightly rejected. He argued that -
(i) The respondents had authority to decide whether this incentive for export should be granted or not and it is disclosed from words 'may' and 'from time to time' in the SDF Rules. For the year 2007-2008, there was policy to grant subsidy assistance to the extent of 30 lakhs metric tonnes, and it was extended to 60 lakhs metric tonnes. The respondents followed the policy on ''first come first serve basis'' and out of 1881 claims submitted up to 30th September, 2008, 1325 claims worth Rs.805.17 crores were allowed. Some of the claims of the petitioners were also allowed. The remaining 556 claims worth Rs. 230-240 crores could not be allowed as the limit of 60 lakh metric tonnes export was over. He also submitted that -
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
6 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
(a) The claims were barred by limitation of 90/180 days from the date of issue of last bank realization certificate.
(b) The claims were not supported with necessary documents like utilization certificate and shipping Bills and mate certificates.
(c) The claimants submitted fresh revised claims on their own, which were barred by limitation. Such revised claims could not be considered as deemed to be filed on the date of first claim.
(d) He also argued that this writ petition is filed belatedly and therefore, those cannot be entertained.
6. In Writ Petition No. 2651/2012, Mr. Parag Barde, learned Advocate for petitioner argued that it is not in dispute that the Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was in financial constraints and was heavily indebted. Respondent No. 2 Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank took possession of the property under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short SARFAESI Act, 2002) for recovery of the loan. The respondent No. 2 leased the running business to the petitioner for recovery of loan. The petitioner was running the said factory as a running business. The lease agreement provided that the petitioner as tenant was entitled for subsidy of export assistance. The petitioner during the period March, 2008 to September, 2008 exported sugar as per the quantity and the price as shown in the chart below :- ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
7 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
Sr.No. Period Weight in Quintal Amount of subsidy 1 March, 2008 23460 3167100 2 April, 2008 19490 2631150 3 May, 2008 28270 3816450 4 June, 2008 7080 955800 5 July, 2008 35840 4703400 6 August, 2008 16073 2169855 7 September, 2008 5200 702000 Total 18145755
7. The petitioners in due course submitted the claim. The petitioners earlier claims were allowed but the claim for Rs. 1,81,45,755/- was only partly allowed to the extent of Rs. 62,85,240/-. The remaining claim of Rs. 118,60,515/- was wrongly rejected by the respondents. Though the claim was filed within 90 days from the last date of bank BRC, it was rejected as barred by time limit. Advocate Barde submitted that grant of export assistance is a right conferred under the statute, the petitioners had complied all the terms and conditions and the respondents erred in wrongly rejecting the said claim. In the year 2011, the respondents raised query about difference in name, but Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. was taken by petitioner as running business and the lease agreement clearly shows the petitioner's right. Mr. Barde also ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 8 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
adopted the arguments of Senior Counsel Mr. Dhorde.
8. Per contra, Mr. S.B.Deshpande, learned Assistant Solicitor General argued that the respondents and concerned authorities and the experts relating to management of sugar manufacturing and marketing took a policy decision. The respondents have satisfied the claims of 1333 out of 1881 claims to the tune of Rs. 800.30 crorers within the ceiling limit of 60 lakh metric tonnes on 'first come first serve basis'. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision of the Government. It is also pointed out that the actual claims was of Rs. 1,75,65,255/- and the claims submitted by the petitioners were incomplete and submitted late. Hence, those were rightly rejected.
9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties in the light of the pleadings, affidavit and documents on record.
10. On going through the provisions of Sugar Development Fund Act (SDF Act, 1982) and the Rules framed thereunder. The fund is formed by taking contributions from the price of sugarcane which is ultimately the money of sugarcane growers. Sub Clause 3(b) reads the purpose of utilization of the funds and sub clause 3(bbb) shows that one of the objects of raising the funds is for defraying expenditure on internal transport and freight charges to the sugar factories on export shipments of sugar with a view to promoting its export.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
9 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
SDF Rules, 1983. Rule 20 reads as under :
20. (1) The Central Government may having regard to the stock of sugar held by the sugar factories prospects of sugar production and requirement of sugar for consumption in the country domestic and international prices of sugar and such other factors as may be considered necessary and after consultation with the Committee decide from time to time to defray expenditure on internal transport and freight charges to sugar factories on export shipment of domestically manufactured sugar with a view to promoting its export for such period as it deems proper.
Subject to the decision of the Central Government under sub-rule (1) the expenditure on internal transport and freight charges on export shipment shall be defrayed from the fund.
(3) Any sugar factory which after obtaining release order issued under Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order 1966 has transported its manufactured sugar for export shipments and the same has been exported either by the sugar factory or through an exporter shall be eligible to apply for reimbursement of expenditure incurred on the internal transport and freight charges on such export shipments of sugar.
11. Sub clause 5 prescribes the documents which are required to be annexed to the claims submitted.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
10 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
12. Sugar is essential commodity and the Government has absolute right to formulate policies with due reference to the quantity produced, market conditions, the rates in different regions and international markets and in tune with such policies, Government can also take appropriate decisions with regard to the grant of subsidy, export assistance and the rates of such assistance. It is trite that this Court will not interfere with the Government Policies and the decisions in this regard.
13. The notification of Ministry of Consumer Affairs dated 7 th November, 2017 declared policy for the upcoming season. The export assistance was to be given only to the manufacturer of sugar under open general licence and not under advance licence. The subsidy was fixed at Rs. 1350/- per tonne for sugar mills located in coastal area and Rs. 1450/- per tonne for non coastal sugar mills. There were separate rules for export of refined sugar export with which we are not concerned.
Rule 3(a) stipulated that the decision has been taken that export assistance will be given only in cases of sugars exported before 30th September, 2008. Rule 3(a) stipulated that the claim for such assistance must be submitted by the sugar factories within 90 days from the date of issuance of last bank certificate of export and realization by the bank. In case of delay beyond 90 days, the same relief was offered with deduction of 10 % up to maximum limit of 180 days.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
11 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
Rule 3(c) specifically lays down that no claim shall be admissible after 180 days from the date of issue of last bank certificate.
14. Rule 14 of SDF Rules, 1983 applicable to subsidy towards interest storage and insurance cover that the payment may be advised by Central Government for every quarter year or part thereof to every sugar factory. There is no sub clause in the Act and Rules with regard to the period for which the claims were to be submitted for subsidy of export assistance.
15. The notification dated 7th November, 2007 clause 9 provides that the claims must be submitted separately for each calender month of export in form No. 9 duly filled in along with the documents specified therein. Form 9 clause 3 shows that those claims are to be submitted for every month.
16. Though not argued, since the delay in submission of claims beyond 180 days makes the claim time barred, it is pertinent to note here that as per Government Resolution dated 08.11.2017 the claims of sugar mills for buffer subsidy and export incentive must be registered and acknowledgment should be issued showing the registration number. The claims which are accompanied with all the prescribed documents would be processed for settlement sequentially as per registration number issued at the time of receipt of the bank in the respective claims. ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
12 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
17. SDF Rule 11 is material. It reads as under :-
The reimbursement claim of the sugar factory shall be settled within forty-five days of the receipt of the complete documents from the sugar factory unless the Central Government has in writing communicated to the sugar factory within that period to furnish any requisite document.
Thus, the registration of the claim and the processing of the claim within 45 days are the stipulations made in order to prevent any denial of rightful claim on the ground of limitation
18. Though this Court has no scope to interfere with the policy decision of the Government, the Government is supposed to act as a beneficial social state and model litigant. The principles of promissory estoppel are well settled and are equally applicable to the Government.
(i) On promissory estoppel, Mr. Dhorde, learned Counsel, relied on a landmark judgment in M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Utter pradesh, reported in (1979) SCC 409, wherein, applicability of doctrine of promissory estoppel in administrative action by the Government is explained. It is held that doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, applies to the Government or State in whichever capacity it acts. However, Government will not be bound if it can show that equity lies in its favour. Government Can also save itself if on notice and reasonable opportunity being given by it the promisee ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 13 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
can resume his position, not otherwise. Also, promissory estoppel cannot be applied against the Government if it is under an obligation or liability imposed by law to act differently. The Government declared policy of tax holiday for new units in Vanaspati. It cannot change the policy, even if the appellant had accepted to pay the tax at concessional rate.
(ii) Further reliance is placed on S.V.A. Steel Re- Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2014) 4 SCC 186, wherein, the State had given assurance of 100 uninterrupted power supply for five years. Later the policy was made subject to condition that electricity supply was reduced to 50% on certain days. It was observed that framing of policies and their implementation are administrative functions of the State and normally the Court should interfere with its policies but looking at the peculiar facts of the case, where an assurance had been given for uninterrupted supply of electricity, one would presume that the State must have made necessary arrangements to provide 100% uninterrupted supply of electricity for 5 years to the new units. If for any reason it was not possible to supply electricity as assured, the State ought to have extended the period of 5 years by the period during which assured electricity was not supplied. If an assurance was given to the appellants and similarly situated persons that they would be given 100% electricity supply for five years, the respondents can not riggle out of their liability by making a policy to the effect that the benefit by way of incentive would be extended only if the electricity supply was reduced to less than 50% on a particular day.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
14 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
It was further observed that the State should not give assurance without proper appreciation of all the relevant factors as it would not be only violation of the principles of promissory estoppel but it would be unfair and immoral on the part of the State not to act as per its promise.
(iii) In case of Devi Multiplex Vs. State of Gujrat (2015) 9 SCC 132, the facts were that the Government resolution laid down new relaxation norms for extension of validity period of various projects thereby curtailing period and opportunity available under Clause 10 of the Scheme. The scheme was framed in 1995 based on statutory notification dated 14.02.1997. It was held that if the State Government was desirous of amending, varying or rescinding the said notification dated 14.02.1997, subsequent Government Resolution dated 28.06.2000 ought to have been translated into a statutory notification under the Act. In absence of which, the G.R. was bad and ineffective. Amendment can only be done by statutory notification and not by Government Resolution or administrative orders.
19. Mr. S.B. Deshpande, the learned Assistant Solicitor General relied on Union of India Vs. Shri Hanuman Industries 2015 (6) SCC 600 (para 15, 17) to submit that when public interest is involved, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to the detriment of public interest. However, it was observed by Their Lordships that the doctrine of the promissory estoppel would be displaced in such a case, because on the facts, equity would not require that the Government should be held bound by the promise ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 15 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
made by it. That aside overriding public interest against enforcement of the doctrine qua the Government, it would be still competent for the Government to depart from the promise on giving reasonable notice which need not be a formal one, affording the promisee a reasonable opportunity of resuming his position was underlined. Thus, if the Government wants to modify or withdraw any benefit under the policies framed, a reasonable notice of the same should be given to the parties likely to be aggrieved so that they may not suffer any loss or they can take steps to substantially reduce the loss.
20. In the present case, we find that nowhere the Government declared the policy to restrict claim only to the ceiling limit of 60 lakh metric tonnes and the claims would be processed on first come first serve basis. If the Government wanted to do that, the Government should have issued clear notice to the sugar factories about their intentions. No such notice was given. The Policy of the Government was simple. All claims in respect of sugars exported prior to September, 2008 would get the benefit of export assistance. Therefore, the Government's subsequent decision to restrict the claim to only 60 lakh metric tonnes ceiling limit on the basis of first come first serve basis is not tenable as it is contrary to its own policy declared to the stake holders.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
16 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
21. Mr. Dhorde has relied on -
(i) Shriniketan CGH Society Vs. Visas Vihar CGH Society 1989 SC 1623 (Para 32, 33)
(ii) Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union AIR 2012 SC 3725 to submit that first come first serve basis is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation, the issue was grant of licence in respect of natural resources while in Shriniketan CGH Society's case, the issue was of allotment of Nazul land to the Co-operative Group Housing Society for construction of apartments. The object was somewhat different. In the light of the facts of the present case, it is unnecessary to consider whether the first come first serve basis in present facts will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or not, as there was no such policy declared with a reasonable notice to the stake holders. The rejection of the claims on this ground is not sustainable.
22. The next major ground taken is of delay in submission of the application. As per the chart shown in para No. 3, we find that in all the cases, the claims were made within stipulated time of 90 days from the date of last bank receipt certificate. However, it is found that the claims were to be made separately for each month whereas the claim for March, 2008 was made combined for March and April, 2008. It seems that the claim of August, 2008 was for 5307.5 metric ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 17 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
tonnes only. It was subsequently modified by submitting revised claim for 5527 metric tonnes. It appears that as per the directions of the Government Officers, the petitioner from Writ Petition No. 4499/2016 submitted revised claims and it is contended that the revised claims were barred. The chart referred above, disclose that even the revised claims were not time barred except for March 2008. The date of last bank receipt certificate, in that case was 07.07.2008.The claim was received on 30.09.2008 i.e. within 90 days, but revised claim was submitted on 16.01.2009, which is beyond six months.
23. As far as claim for August, 2008 is concerned, the date of last bank receipt certificate was 30.12.2008. The claim dated 16.01.2009 was received on 21.01.2009 and the revised claim was acknowledged on 13.03.2009. In case of September, 2008, the last bank receipt was dated 01.11.2008. The original claim dated 16.01.2009 was acknowledged on 21.01.2009 and there was no revised claim.
24. The Government Officers should have taken into consideration the fact that the Sugar Development Fund is formed by deducting amounts from the prices of the sugar payable to the sugarcane growers. The sugarcane growers have no right to submit the claim for export assistance, but if the same is not granted to the sugar factories, they will be the sufferers. The export assistance ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 18 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
given to the sugar factories is meant for distribution amongst the sugarcane growers. As representative of beneficial social State, the respondents should have taken liberal approach in the interest of sugarcane growers, to hold that subsequent revised claims, if they were only monthwise bifurcations, were deemed to be filed on the date of original claim.
25. If the original claim was submitted within time, it was bounden duty of the Government Officers to process it within 45 days and call upon the sugar factories to ask for the deficit documents and correction of other discrepancies as per SDF Rule
11. The Government Resolution dated 08.11.2007 also lays down that the claims should be registered and the acknowledgment should be issued and those should be sequentially processed. In the present case, we find that these provisions are not followed. The claim for March, 2008 was not processed within the stipulated time and was rejected on the ground of delay when the original claim was filed within time what is rejected is the revised claim and not the original claim and it is rejected only on the ground of limitation.
26. Mr. Dhorde, relied upon the Mohinder Singh Gill's case, wherein it is laid down that even the administrative orders should give the reasons and those can be defended for the reasons disclosed therein. The reasons cannot be supplemented.
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::
19 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
27. As far as two other bills for August, 2008 and September, 2008 are concerned, those were not decided at all. No decision was taken. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court and as per the directions of this Court, those claims were rejected by order dated 8th December, 2014 for various reasons.
28. We find that the original claims which were within time could not have been rejected on the ground of bar of limitation. No orders are passed on the original claims. Those were not processed within 45 days and no opportunity was given to the sugar factories to produce the deficit documents. Therefore, the ground that some documents were not annexed is not tenable. It is claimed that the claims were not supported with mate receipts. The policy decision and SDF Act and Rule 20 (5) does not specifically use the word mate receipt as essential requirement. It was not communicated by any circular or notification that mate receipts will have to be attached. Subsequently, mate receipts were produced. The late filing of mate receipts could not have been a ground as the requirement thereof was not communicated earlier to the sugar factory.
29. If the Government feels that the bills must have been submitted only for the month and not for 2 or 3 months together and this Rule is to be strictly followed, even in those cases, the Government should have considered the claim and could have ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 20 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
partly allowed the claim only to the extent of one month.
30. As far as Writ Petition No. 2651/2012 is concerned, the rejection was on the ground that the claim was not tenable on the policy of first come first serve basis within the ceiling limit of 60 lakh metric tonnes. It is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The second contention was that the claim was right only for the amount of Rs. 1,75,65,255/ as against Rs. 1,81,45,755/-. It has been partially allowed to the extent of Rs. 62,85,240/-. We have already held that the ground of rejection is not sustainable. In 2011, the respondent had raised a query regarding change of name. The documents clearly disclose that Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana was attached by respondent No. 2 for recovering of dues and was leased to the petitioner. The lease deed is produced. The respondents have not raised objection on this ground in their reply. Hence, this point needs no consideration.
31. Learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri S.B. Deshpande also relied on Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, 2010 (1) All.M.R.(SC) 982 on the point of delay in filing Writ Petition. In this case, the employees had to opt for pension scheme or Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Scheme. The respondent/employees, while in services did not make option for pension scheme and continued with CPF scheme. Later, after 22 years, he opted for pension scheme. His claim was rejected and the Tribunal and High Court upheld the challenge. The Apex Court held that claim was ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 21 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
rightly rejected and the orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside on the ground of delay in filing application.
32. Mr. Deshpande, the learned Counsel relied on In Secretary to Government Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg (Wvg) Co. Ltd. , 1963 AIR (Ker.) 69, to submit that the writ petitions are filed in 2016 whereas the claims were of the year 2008. In this regard, we find that the respondents are at fault and they had not taken decision in most of the claims for long time. The petitioners were constrained to file writ petition in 2014 and after the orders of this Court, the claims were decided and rejected in 2014. The writ petitions are filed in 2016. Those cannot be said to be barred by limitation. It must be also considered that as far as public interest is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the sugar cane growers deserve to get the export assistance.
33. We find that the respondents as representative of the State Government, were under statutory obligation to give equal treatment to all the sugarcane growers as per the policy framed by the Government. The policy prescribed that the export should be before 30th September, 2008 and the bills should be submitted within 90 days or 180 days. When these conditions were fulfilled, the respondents were not supposed to ignore the claims and not to pass any orders. After the claims were decided in December, 2014, the Writ Petition is filed within a reasonable time. As far as Writ Petition ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 ::: 22 WP-2651-12 & WP-4499-16 J...
No. 2651 is concerned, it was filed in 2012. Hence, the Writ Petitions cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. The facts in the Judgments relied upon are quite different and not applicable to the present facts.
34. We therefore partly allow both the Writ Petitions.
35. The impugned orders of rejection of the claims are set aside.
36. The respondents are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners both original or revised except the revised claim of March, 2008 dated 21.01.2009.
37. We make it clear that the claims shall not be dismissed on the grounds which we have held to be unsustainable.
38. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
39. No order as to costs.
( A.M. DHAVALE ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
mta
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2019 03:05:27 :::