Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a limited company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 [for short 'the Act']. It was earlier incorporated under the name and style of Himachal Steel Fabricator Private Limited, having its works at Barotiwala, Himachal Pradesh but subsequently vide certificate of incorporation dated 5.12.1994, obtained from the Registrar of Companies (Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh), the petitioner acquired its present name and became a Public Limited Company w.e.f. 1.4.1999. It is alleged that vide notification No.4085-PS/SI/92 dated 28.09.1992, State of Punjab notified "Package of Incentives" for the industrial development in the State of Punjab known as 'Package of Incentives-1992' [for short 'the Investment Incentives (Subsidy)'] in which provision was made, inter alia, for the grant of Sales Tax exemption and investment incentive (subsidy) to the companies, setting up their industries in the State of Punjab. The petitioner also set up a unit for manufacturing galvanized steel tapes in District Patiala after purchasing land at Village Bhankarpur and established its Unit-I. It was registered as a small scale industry and started production from 5.12.1995. Galvanized steel tapes were used for manufacturing of jelly filled telephone cables. The petitioner applied for investment incentive (subsidy) under the Policy and a sum of Rs. 6,63,000/- was sanctioned to it on 8.4.1997. The petitioner in the year 1997 expanded its manufacturing and established Unit-II within the same premises for manufacturing sheathing compound/water proof polyester film, which is the raw material required for the manufacturing of jelly filled telephone cables. The petitioner was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,53,000/- as additional incentives (subsidy) on 13.10.1998. The petitioner went into further expansion in the year 2000 and set up a Cold Rolling Mill for manufacturing of cold rolled steel strips, which is also a basic raw material for the manufacturing of galvanized steel tapes and on account of this expansion, a sum of Rs. 30 lacs were sanctioned as Incentive (subsidy) on 21.8.2008. The petitioner has allegedly obtained the benefit of Sales Tax exemption but the incentive (subsidy) was not given to it since the day it came into commercial production. During the year 2002, because of the change in the technology, jelly filled telephone cables were replaced by optic fiber cables, as a consequence thereof, the petitioner suffered losses as there were no buyers. It was unable to pay its loans and the banker of the petitioner issued a notice dated 5.2.2005 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for short 'the SARFAESI Act'] for taking possession of the Unit of the petitioner and the physical possession was taken in March, 2005.
(2.) However, in order to avoid the Unit to be taken over by the banker, the petitioner was forced to sell its Unit to M/s Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale deed dated 25.3.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- out of which Rs. 25 lacs were to be paid in 'No Lien Account', to be opened by the purchaser in Bank of India, to be utilized for clearance of bank dues and the balance amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- was directly paid to Bank of India. Thereafter, respondent No.4 purchased the Unit from M/s Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale deed dated 18.7.2005. The petitioner made representation by way of an application dated 25.9.2006 for release of investment incentives (subsidy) but its application was rejected on the ground that the Unit has been sold. Aggrieved against the rejection order dated 14.12.2006, the petitioner filed CWP No.2966 of 2007 titled as M/s Majestic Metaliks Limited Vs. The State of Punjab and others, which was admitted on 21.1.2008. In the meantime, respondent No.4 represented the official respondents for recovery of the investment incentive (subsidy) and wrote a letter dated 24.3.2006 to respondent No.3 for disbursement of subsidy, which was rejected vide letter dated 19.7.2006 and communicated to respondent No.4 on 4.10.2006. Respondent No.4 filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.18520 of 2006 alleging that it is the successor unit of the petitioner and is entitled to receive the sanctioned investment incentive (subsidy). The said writ petition was disposed of on 6.5.2009 but it is alleged that the pendency of the CWP No.2966 of 2007, filed by the petitioner, was not brought to the notice of the Court. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 3.12.2009 was passed and consequently, vide memo dated 23.12.2009, the incentive (subsidy) was released to respondent No.4.
(3.) It is alleged that the petitioner was not aware of the events of the release of investment incentives to respondent No.4 till he came to know about the decision in his CWP No.2966 of 2007, which was allowed on 20.5.2011 because thereafter he made enquires from the office of respondents No.2 and 3 and came to know that the investment incentive (subsidy) has already been released to respondent No.4 and thus, the present petition has been filed.;