IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C)No.2163 of 2011
Laxmi Business & Cement Co. (P) Ltd. ... ... ... ...Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Industries,
Government of Jharkhand, having its Office situated at 3rd Floor,
Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
2. Director of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office
situated at 3rd Floor, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, DistrictRanchi.
3. Deputy Director of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, having his
Office situated at 3rd Floor, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District
Ranchi.
4. General Manager, District Industries Centre, P.O., P.S. & District
Hazaribagh. … … … … … … …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE POONAM SRIVASTAV
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Poddar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Dr. S.K.Verma, Sr. S.C.I.
04/ 19.10.2011 Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and also Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
Pleadings are complete. The writ petition is listed for
admission. As agreed between the respective Counsels, the writ petition
is decided finally.
Grievance of the petitioner is that his application for grant of
Pollution Control Equipment subsidy, interest subsidy and also grant of
capital subsidy under the Jharkhand Industries Incentive Rules, 2003 is
rejected on 24.12.2010, 13.01.2011 and 20.1.2011 respectively
(AnnexureIV, V and VI).
The specific submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the
petitioner’s unit came into commercial production on 5th December,
2005 and within four months he applied for issuance of a certificate by
the competent authority i.e. District Industries Centre regarding
commencement of the commercial production by the petitioner. The
application was made in a prescribed form along with a forwarding letter
dated 15th April, 2006 which was received in the Office of respondent
no.2 on 20th April, 2006. Repeated reminders were made on several
occasions, personally on several visits and also letters were also sent.
This has been asserted in detail in paragraph no.16 and 17 of the writ
petition. These assertions of the writ petition are not disputed in the
counteraffidavit inasmuch as it is stated that the matters relate to
record.
2.
In the circumstances, the petitioner’s application for grant of
subsidy was rejected on the ground that it was received at a very belated
stage and according to the Rules the application was to be made within a
period of six months from the date of production.
The contention of the learned Counsel is that despite there
being a request to the RespondentDepartment for issuance of a
certificate for fulfilling requisite qualifications for grant of subsidy, the
delay was not on the part of the petitioner but on account of latches and
lapses of the respondents themselves. However, I am not inclined to give
opinion and embark upon examining the reasons which caused delay but
since these are specific assertion in the writ petition as well as also
substantiated by the documents annexed with the writ petition, I am of
the considered view that the petitioner shall file a representation along
with a true copy of this writ petition as well as counteraffidavit and
rejoinder before the concerned authority, who shall in turn examine the
questions raised. Since the matters relate to the facts, this Court cannot
examine these factual aspects and controversy is, therefore, relegated to
the respondents to decide these questions after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner by a speaking order in accordance with law
within a period of six weeks from the date the representation is received.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the
aforesaid terms.
[Poonam Srivastav,J.]
P.K.S.