JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
Page 1282
1. Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to sanction and disburse the balance amount of interest free loan to it in compliance of the judgment dated 23.9.1993 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 587 of 1992 (R).
2. Petitioner’s case is that it expanded its industrial unit and after such expansion, production started on 31.12.1987. As per the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1986 contained in Resolution No. 13730 dated 1.1.1986, it was entitled to certain incentives/exemptions. As the same was not granted, the petitioner had to move Page 1283 this Court by filing the said writ petition which was disposed of on 23rd September, 1993. The relevant portion of the said order is referred:
…In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits in terms of the aforementioned resolution No. 13730 of 1st September, 1986 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application, inasmuch as, the petitioners’ case is squarely governed by the aforementioned three decisions. Learned G.P.I, however, drew my attention to the counter affidavit and submitted that the matter relating to grant of all facilities in terms of the aforementioned resolution is pending before the State Level Committee.
In this view of the matter, the respondents including the State Level Committee are hereby directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as early as possible and pay all the lawful dues to the petitioner in terms of the policy decision of the State of Bihar as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3. It is further submitted that as the said order was not complied fully, a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 90 of 1995 (R) was filed which was disposed of on 1.8.1995 with liberty to move before proper forum for the remaining grievances. Accordingly, petitioner made representation stating inter alia that only Rs. 68,625/- was paid against the period 1.1.1988 to 31.3.1989. It claimed interest free loan for the remaining period i.e. 1.4.1989 to 31.12.1992 but by order dated 24.11.1995 (Annexure 6) a sum of Rs. 97,263/- only was sanctioned/paid against the said period referring to some old inapplicable resolutions/letters dated 28.11.1979 and 20.1.1981. Petitioner had to file a representation again claiming full amount, but by letter dated 1.3.1996 (Annexure 8), it was rejected saying that in case the sales tax assessment are complete, full amount; otherwise 75% of the tax amount; or 50% of the capital investment; whichever is lower, is to be disbursed as interest free loan and, accordingly, the said amounts have been rightly disbursed on the basis of capital investment. It is submitted that such provisions might be there in the old policies/circulars, but there was no such provision in the 1986 Policy. Further by letter dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure 10), the respondent No. 3 wrongly justified such action, interpreting Note (a) to Clause 9(2)(b) of the Policy which was applicable to large and medium industries, whereas petitioner was a small scale industry.
4. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the one hand, the State Government declares incentives for industrial growth and on the other hand, the Government authorities frustrate such policies on some pretext or other for the reasons known to them. Petitioner was compelled to move this Court. It was held by this Court that petitioner was entitled to incentives under the Industrial Policy of 1986. Even then the respondents did not disburse the full amount of interest free loan to which it was entitled, on wholly untenable grounds, and in arbitrary manner.
5. The question is whether the said grounds for not disbursing the full amount of sales tax paid as interest free loan under the Industrial Policy of 1986 are tenable and whether the impugned action is arbitrary?
6. Admittedly petitioner was entitled to interest free loan under the said Policy of 1986. As per Clause 9(2)(a) of this Policy, the maximum limit of loan for a small scale Page 1284 industry was Rupees Ten Lacs/Fifteen Lacs as per the category of the district. As per Clause 9(2)(b), for medium and large industries, the maximum limit of loan is based on capital investment. Note (a) is apparently related to Clause 9(2)(b) only, which is not applicable in the case of the petitioner being a small scale industry. It is thus clear that the respondents have ignored the provisions of 1986 Policy and referred to the old Policies/Resolutions and misinterpreted Note (a) to Clause 9, to deny the full amount of interest free loan, to which he was entitled. Mr. H.K. Singh, learned State counsel, could not dispute this position. Accordingly, it has to be held that the respondents denied the said incentives on untenable grounds and in arbitrary manner.
7. Mr. S.N. Rajgarhia, counsel for the petitioner submitted that in any event as on today, the assessments for the years in question are complete and, therefore, there should not be any difficulty in disbursing the full amounts of tax free loan.
8. In the circumstances, the petitioner will make a fresh representation before respondent No. 3 giving full details about its claim annexing the document in support of the same, and the amounts already received, within four weeks. Respondent No. 3 will see that the balance amount of interest free loan is disbursed to the petitioner, as per the Policy of 1986, within two months from the date of receipt of such representation. He will also fix the repayment schedule of such loan.
9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.