- (1.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents challenging their decision of non-granting of subsidy, as claimed by the petitioner under the State Scheme of Incentives for Cottage & Small Scale Industries, 1989. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered private limited company. The State Government introduced a scheme for giving financial assistance by way of subsidy viz. State Scheme of Incentives for Cottage & Small Scale Industries, 1989. Said scheme was implemented by Notification dated 03.08.1989. It was introduced for promoting growth and development of industries, as specified under the said scheme in the backward areas of West Bengal. It was formulated in order to extend fiscal incentives to encourage entrepreneurs to set up or expand Cottage and Small Scale Industries with a view to generate new employment. The petitioner-company, being a shall scale industrial unit, was registered under the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale Industries, Government of West Bengal. The petitioner submitted a scheme for setting up a Re-rolling Mill in the District Malda in order to avail of the benefits, as proposed by the State Government in the said 1989 scheme. Production of the said industry was started on and from 21st February, 1990. Application, accompanied by all the relevant papers, for grant of subsidy under the 1989 scheme, was also submitted with the respondent No.4. After verification of the original documents, the respondent No.4 sanctioned a subsidy under the Central Investment Scheme amounting to Rs.1,34,504/- and the said amount was disbursed in favour of the petitioner by an Account Payee Cheque. As per provisions of the 1989 scheme, the application is to be placed before the committee for consideration within a period of two months from the date of receipt by the respondent No.4. But as the said mandatory provision was not followed by the respondent No.4, so the petitioner submitted two successive representations praying for making necessary arrangement for early disposal of the matter so that the petitioner can get the subsidy at the earliest. In spite of that, the respondent No.4 failed to process and finalise the application, filed by the petitioner for getting the subsidy as per provisions of 1989 scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted revised annexure before the respondent No.4 on 07.01.1993. All on a sudden on 23.09.1993 the respondent No.4 issued a letter in favour of the petitioner informing the petitioner that the petitioner's claim for subsidy has been approved and the petitioner was offered to opt for the balance portion of the State subsidy under the new State Scheme of Incentives introduced in the year 1993. The respondent No.4 further sent a prescribed form to the petitioner to opt for the said new scheme. As such, the petitioner was under the impression that he will get the subsidy under the 1989 scheme within a very short period. But, suddenly on 06.10.1993 the respondent No.4 issued another letter in the name of the petitioner informing that the petitioner's application for subsidy is under consideration and it has neither been approved nor sanctioned. Said letter dated 06.10.1993, according to the petitioner, was issued motivatedly in order to deprive the petitioner from his legitimate rights. After receiving the said letter, the petitioner raised objection and requested the respondent No.4 to review the case and allow the subsidy in favour of the petitioner as per State Incentives Scheme, 1989. It was clearly mentioned therein that the petitioner already got subsidy under the Central Investment Scheme and submitted the subsidy proposal under the State Incentives Scheme, 1989 on 25.02.1992 and the petitioner having filed such application for subsidy within the tenure of the said scheme, is eligible and entitled to have such benefit under the said scheme of 1989. In spite of that the representations submitted by the petitioner were not considered by the respondent authority. Ultimately, the respondent No.4 by his letter dated 18.11.1993 informed the petitioner that the claim for subsidy as per 1989 scheme could not be accepted by the committee. Said letter was issued by the respondent No.4 illegally in order to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate claim and it is nothing but an afterthought. Again on 09.12.1993 the petitioner received another letter from the respondent stating therein that the case of the petitioner would be determined in accordance with the terms of 1989 scheme, but benefit will be admissible strictly in terms of the scheme of 1993 and the petitioner was asked to submit application under the new scheme of 1993. The action on the part of the respondent in this respect, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal too. It has been claimed by the petitioner that the case of several similarly situated candidates have been approved and they have been disbursed subsidy under the State Incentives Scheme, 1989 even after December 1993. The case of the respondent No.5 has been cited in this respect. The petitioner has claimed that there was no justification on the part of the respondent No.4 to deny the petitioner of similar benefit and it is a clear case of discrimination which is violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further claimed that as he filed the complete application on 25.02.1992 for getting the benefit of the 1989 scheme and as the said application was filed during the continuance of the said scheme, the respondent No.4 is now estopped from denying the promise which he had made in the said scheme when the application was first made by the petitioner. As such, being aggrieved by the action taken by the respondent No.4 in denying the petitioner of giving benefit of the 1989 scheme, this writ petition has been filed praying for passing appropriate direction upon the respondent No.4, so that the benefit of the said scheme can be given to the petitioner.
(2.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondent No.4, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Malda. In Para 4 of the A/O. the respondent No.4 had admitted that the petitioner-company prayed for State Incentive grant and Central Investment subsidy and after enquiry an amount of Rs. 1,34,504/- was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner-company towards Central Investment subsidy and was disbursed in favour of the petitioner during the constructional period of the petitioner-company. It has further been admitted that the petitioner- company applied under the State Subsidy Scheme, 1989, on 25.02.1992. Due to various procedures, that are to be followed in the office of the respondent No.4, there was delay in disposal of the said application, as filed by the petitioner- company. As during that period, the 1989 scheme was kept in abeyance by the Government notification on and from 01.01.1993, so the petitioner's case was neither sanctioned nor approved by the committee. In cancellation of the earlier incentives schemes, a new scheme of State Incentive, 1993 was invited on 26.05.1993 and came into force with retrospective effect from 01.04.1993. However, an amount of Rs.3,46,183/- was kept reserved for the petitioner- company keeping in view total cost of the plant and machinery as per assessment done by the department. It was duly informed to the petitioner, who did not come to accept the same. According to the respondent No.4, due to clerical mistake it was mentioned in the letter dated 23.09.1993 that the case of the petitioner-company was sanctioned as per 1989 scheme. As soon as the mistake was detected, it was immediately rectified by the letter dated 06.10.1993. The respondent No.4 has categorically claimed that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the clerical mistake and as such it cannot be held that the prayer of the petitioner-company for incentive, was sanctioned as per 1989 scheme. The -respondent has claimed that there is nothing wrong on the part of the respondent No.4 in not allowing the petitioner's case as per 1989 scheme since an amount of Rs.3,46,183/- has been kept separately to be disbursed in favour of the petitioner-company if he is ready to come within the scheme of 1993. The respondent has claimed that there was no arbitrariness on illegality in the action taken by it and as such question of showing any discrimination towards the petitioner-company does not arise at all. The respondent No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for both the sides. It is the admitted position that the State Government floated State Scheme of Incentives for Cottage & Small Scale Industries, 1989 in order to give benefit to the Small Scale Industries. For this, a detailed procedure has been laid down in the scheme of the year 1989. The object of the said scheme is to extend fiscal incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to set up or expand Cottage and Small Scale Industrial units with a view to generate new employment. The said scheme came into force w.e.f. 01.04.1989 and shall remain valid up to the period ending 31st March, 1994. It is the admitted position that the petitioner submitted application for getting the benefit of this 1989 scheme. Although the petitioner has claimed that in the year 1989 he applied for coming into the said scheme, but no such document is available. However, there is no dispute that in the year 1992 a formal application duly filled up by the petitioner-company was submitted with the respondent No.4 for coming within the perview of the 1989 scheme. It means that the petitioner-company filed the said application within the existence of the 1989 scheme. In the 1989 scheme it appears that the State Government has given several promises to the Small Scale Industry holder in order to set up their Small Scale Industry in the remote places of West Bengal. Naturally, it is presumed that on the basis of the said promise, the petitioner-company and others were tempted to set up their Small Scale Industries in the State of West Bengal on the basis of those promises. Mr. Dutta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the Government of West Bengal cannot now back out from those promises, in view of the principle of estoppel. In this respect he has relied upon the decision reported in 2004 (1) SCC 139, State of Orissa and Ors. v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. He has also relied upon the decision reported in 1979 (2) SCC 409, Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. I have perused those decisions. It appears that in the decision reported in 1997 (2) SCC 409 (supra) the Apex Court has held to the effect that: - "Where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties.";