TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for Agro Based Units, 1996 for promotion of Agro-based Units was floated by the State Government. The petitioner applied for the benefit of subsidy under this scheme and petitioner's application for grant of subsidy was considered and his case was recommended by the Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur (for short RSAMB) and for that purpose a certificate was given by the Executive Engineer was also annexed with the recommendation. The Executive Engineer, RSAMB recommended total subsidy of Rs. 8. 44 lacs. The said amount was reduced by the RSAMB in its sanctioned letter dated 11. 03. 1999 to Rs. 5. 69 lacs in place of Rs. 8. 44 lacs. The petitioner being aggrieved against the reduction of that subsidy amount, submitted representation to the Chairman, State Level Committee for Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 6 and also submitted a representation Annex. 7 in detail pointing out that the petitioner was wrongly denied the maximum benefit of the scheme. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 29. 5. 2000 (Annex. 9) that no action can be taken on petitioner's applications dated 12. 8. 99 and 22. 5. 2000 by the State Agriculture Board. The petitioner further submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 10. The net result is that the petitioner could not get relief as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. The detail facts are not necessary in view of the fact that so far as establishing a unit by the petitioner eligible for investment benefit under the RSAMB Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for Promotion of Agro-Based Units, 1996 is concerned, there is no dispute. There is no dispute about investment made by the petitioner for establishing the unit. The dispute is only with respect to the interpretation of Note (ii) appended to Clause 4 of the scheme of 1996. According to respondents in view of the limit provided for investment subsidy on various investments the petitioner is entitled to the lesser amount of subsidy whereas according to learned counsel for the petitioner neither the Note (ii) of clause 4 has any application in the case of the petitioner nor it restricts or reserve the 50% of the subsidy benefit on investments. Note (ii) of clause 4 of Scheme 1996 is as under:- " (ii) Any investment in land and building which is in excess of fifty per cent (50%) of the total fixed capital investment will not be eligible for subsidy under this scheme. "as such 50% fixed capital investment on land & building and 50% on plant and machinery shall be eligible amount for subsidy purpose. " (No. F. (8) Agri/gr. 2/95 dated 7. 1. 98)" The clause 4 (j) and clause 5 of the said scheme are also relevant. The sub-clause (j) of clause 4 is as under:- " 4. Definitions (a) **** **** **** (b) **** **** **** (c) **** **** **** (d) **** **** **** (e) **** **** **** (f) **** **** **** (g) **** **** **** (h) **** **** **** (i) **** **** **** (j) `eligible fixed capital investment' means investment in: (i) The actual price paid for the land to the extent needed (ii) New Building to the extend needed. (iii) New Plant & Machinery and other fixed capital investment essential for activities of the unit. Provided that second hand machinery imported from outside the country would also be eligible with the following conditions: 1. Subsidy has not been availed on such machinery under any other subsidy. 2. A certificate from Chartered Engineer shall have to be furnished regarding depreciated value of the old plant and machinery and regarding successful working of the machinery for a period of 5 years from the date of start of production/operation. 3. Original copies of bills/vouchers alongwith payment receipts from concerned foreign supplier/suppliers shall have to be furnished. " The clause 5 of the scheme is as under:- " 5. Eligible units set up in the State of Rajasthan will be eligible for capital investment subsidy at the following rates: General Units 1. Unit with a fixed investment from Rs. 5 lacs to Rs. 3 crore 20% of the eligible fixed Capital Investment or Rupees Rs. 20 lacs whichever is less. 2. Unit with a fixed capital investment upto Rs. 5 lacs At the above rates but shall be eligible for the subsidy on assured on assured viability by SLC. " According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner since invested more than Rs. 60 lacs and as per his investment in land he was entitled for the subsidy against the heads (a) investment on land, (b) building and (c) plant and machinery. However, the petitioner invested more amount, which have been shown as other expenditure Rs. 12. 42 lacs and Rs. 1. 95 lacs as working capital and there is no dispute that for those two components, the petitioner is not entitled for any subsidy. It will be worthwhile to mention here that what the petitioner has claimed in investment, is as under:- (i) Land Rs. 2. 38 lacs (ii) Building Rs. 19. 36 lacs (iii) Plant & Machinery Rs. 24. 51 lacs
(3.) AGAINST this investment, the RSAMB assessed eligible investment for the purpose of grant of subsidy is an under:- (i) Land Rs. 1. 95 lacs (ii) Building Rs. 4. 07 lacs (iii) Plant & Machinery Rs. 38. 88 lacs The subsidy sanctioned to the petitioner is as under:- (i) Land Rs. 1. 95 lacs (1. 95 + 4. 07) (Eligible amount 6. 02) (Subsidy sanctioned @ 20% on eligible amount) (ii) Plant & Machinery Rs. 38. 88 lacs Sanctioned amount Rs. 44. 90 lacs. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the land should have been assessed separately for the purpose of grant of subsidy, but has been assessed by clubbing the investment on building. So far as amount, which has been given to the petitioner as subsidy against land and building of Rs. 1. 20 lacs is concerned, there is no dispute or grievance by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is for denial of the subsidy amount to the maximum extent under the head of plant and machinery. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, as per note (ii) of clause 4, the petitioner was entitled for the total subsidy @ 20% of the total investment on plant and machinery, but that has been reduced by the respondents by taking help of Note (ii) of clause 4. ;