IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 1643 of 2011
Saluja Steel & Power (P) Ltd., Giridih ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & ors. ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
For the Respondents : J.C. to A.G.
th
05/Dated: 13 May, 2011
1.
Rule.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a
running plant. The petitioner is also paying sizable amount of tax both to the
Central as well as to the State Government. It has started its manufacturing
activities since the year 200809. The petitioner is manufacturing sponge iron.
The petitioner is entitled to get Interest Subsidy in pursuance of the Industrial
Policy, floated by the respondents. The petitioner is fulfilling all the criteria,
which are referred in Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and the necessary
application with all details have also been preferred. As per the respondents,
since there is some delay, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for getting
Interest Subsidy has been rejected which has given birth to the present
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that they have
raised several issues, inter alia, that in fact there is no delay in preferring such
an application for getting Interest Subsidy because as per the Jharkhand
Industrial Policy floated by the respondents there is no time limit prescribed
for preferring such an application for getting Interest Subsidy and it is
alternatively argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that assuming
without admitting that even if there is a time limit prescribed under the
Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003, then also there is no delay in
preferring such an application because it is within a period of six months from
the end of the financial year. The petitioner applied for Interest Subsidy on
26th June, 2010 and the end of the financial year is 31st March, 2010. Thus,
the application preferred by the petitioner is three months and four/five days
earlier than the last prescribed date and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
get Interest Subsidy.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced an order dated 25th April,
2011 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 991 of 2011 and analogous cases,
whereby, the direction has been given to the respondents to release the
aforesaid Subsidy Interest amount to the petitioner of those writ petitions,
after filing the bank guarantees by the petitioners for equal amount and also
on a condition that such bank guarantee will be kept alive, during pendency
of the writ petitions. Copy of the said order is also given to the learned
counsel for the respondents as well as to this Court, which is taken on record.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and looking to the earlier order passed by
this Court on 25th April, 2011 in the earlier writ petitions, I hereby direct the
respondents to release Interest Subsidy amounting to Rs. 82,89,364/, which
is referred at Annexure2 to the memo of the present petition, to the
petitioner after receiving bank guarantee from the petitioner of such or like
amount. The bank guarantee given by the petitioner shall be kept alive,
during pendency of this writ petition. The petitioner will neither dispose of
the property nor transfer the same by way of sale, mortgage, lease, sublease
or otherwise and it shall not alienate the same, without prior permission of
this Court, which is worth approximately Rs. 83 Lakhs, and will also be kept
free from all encumbrances. No new charge will be created upon the property
at least worth approximately Rs. 83 Lakhs without prior permission of this
Court.
6. Rule is made returnable in the 2nd week of October, 2011.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
Ajay/