- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by Maiden Trading Company Private Limited inter-alia with prayer that notification dated 28.02.1998 (Annexure-8) and letter dated 22.05.1998 (Annexure-10) may be quashed and set aside being barred by doctrine of promissory estoppal, and respondents be directed to grant subsidy as per Scheme of 1990 in view of Annexures 3, 4 and 6.
(2.) Shri S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner purchased a plot by participating in an auction bid on 13.03.1997. This was plot No.F-1093 situate in Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District Alwar. At that time, name of the petitioner-company was M/s. Saphhire Metal Private Limited. Subsequently, its name was changed to M/s. Maiden Trading Company Private Limited. Mutation of aforesaid land was attested in the name of petitioner by order dated 15.07.1997. Petitioner-company as per Central Government notifications issued from time to time was a small scale industrial unit. It was thus granted status of a small scale industrial unit as its annual capacity was of 3000 tones and it being SSI 100% export oriented unit as per certificate bearing Block Code 13 and District Code 02 State Code 17 issued by the Assistant Director, District Industries Centre, Bhiwadi. As per Para 3 of the notification dated 07.06.1994 also, status of the petitioner-company was not changed whereby certain amendments were made in the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme and the unit which was 100% export oriented and was engaged in tissue culture and floriculture with 20% of the eligible fixed capital investment or Rs.25 lacs, whichever is less, were made eligible for subsidy. Petitioner-company qualified those requirements. Petitioner-company having made investment in plant and machinery valued at rupees one crore twenty seven lacs started its production on 14.01.1998. The Central Government, with a view to ascertaining as to which of the ancillary and small scale industrial undertakings were in need of supportive measures, exemption or other favourable treatment under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and so as to enable them to maintain their viability and strength and for promoting in a harmonious manner the industrial economy of the country and arresting the problem of unemployment and securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common goods, issued an Order No.S.O.857(E) dated 10.12.1997. The Central Government in its policy to given incentive and boost to the industrialization, announced "Subsidy Scheme for Industries under New Industrial Policy, 1990". This scheme intended to extend several concessions and incentive facilities so as to encourage the entrepreneurs to set up their industries in Rajasthan. According to the said scheme, subsidy was available to new industrial units coming in commercial production on or after 01.04.1990. According to the petitioner-company, the petitioner being a SSI unit was entitled to rupees twenty lacs of subsidy as per the scheme, because of its eligible fixed capital investment within prescribed limit. District Level Committee in its meeting held on 21.01.1998 recommended for grant of subsidy to the petitioner-company as per the scheme then in vogue.
(3.) Shri S.S. Hasan, learned counsel for petitioner argued that the respondents arbitrarily relied on a subsequent Notification dated 28.02.1998, whereby clause 2 of the Scheme sought to reduce the expenditure of capital investment from rupees three crore to rupees sixty lacs. Respondents illegally by their letter dated 22.05.1998, conveyed to the petitioner that since its capital investment exceeded the amount of Rs.60,00,000/-, in terms of subsequent notification dated 28.02.1998, petitioner-company was not entitled to subsidy. Learned counsel argued that subsequent issued notification dated 28.02.1998 could not have been retrospectively applied to petitioner, particularly when already its case was recommended by the District level Committee. Petitioner acting on the scheme promulgated by the respondent State, altered its provision and made huge investments. Respondents were therefore estopped by application of promissory estoppal from altering their position and going back upon their promise. Change in eligibility criteria by notification dated 28.02.1998 would only apply prospectively. It was therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed.;