- (1.) This writ petition is for quashing the order dated 27.1.2005 (Annexure P6) and order dated 22.7.2005 (Annexure P8) vide which the claim of the petitioner for investment incentive under the Industrial Policy 1996 has been rejected. The petitioner is also seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for the grant of investment incentive as per Industrial Policy 1996 (Annexure P4).
(2.) The petitioner is a partnership firm with two partners namely, Gurinder Singh son of Gurbax Singh and Ravinder Singh son of Gurbax Singh. The said partnership firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms Punjab in the year 2001-2002. The firm was established to carry on the business of printing of all types of books, papers, diaries etc. under the name and style of M/s Printwell lUnit No.II, 146, Focal Point, 1st Floor, Amritsar. After the registration of the above said firm, permission to establish the Unit No.2 on plot No.146, Focal Point, Amritsar was granted by respondent No.3 (General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Amritsar) on 8.1.2002 (Annexure P2). A Certificate of Importer and Exporter Code (IEC) was given on 22.1.2002 (Annexure P3). The Industrial Policy 1996 (Annexure P4) was prevalent at that time and investment incentives were granted to the industrial units that came into production under the said policy. As per Clause 2.9 of the said policy the new unit means a unit which came into commercial production on or after 1.4.1996.
(3.) The petitioner firm after making an investment of Rs. 12750839.50 made a claim of investment incentive to the tune of Rs. 3825251.85 when the firm went into production on 3.1.2003. A representation in this regard was made on 26.6.2003 to respondent No.3 (Annexure P5). The Director, Department of Industries and Commerce-respondent No.2 vide letter dated 27.1.2005 (Annexure P6) informed respondent No.3 that the Government had stopped considering the cases of investment incentives of those units which went into production after 4.6.2002. Since the petitioner had gone into production on 24.10.2002, the claim was rejected.;