V.K. Singhal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not granting the subsidy and rejecting the application.
(2.) The petitioner company had a licence of manufacturing of Industrial Explosives and Detonators and the commercial production started on 12.3.1981 in its first phase. The second phase was started on 1.1.1982 in respect of manufacture of Detonating Fuse. The third phase for manufacturing of Slurry Explosives started on 26th June, 1984. A scheme was announced by the Government of Rajasthan to grant subsidy to all industries in Dholpur. The application was submitted by the petitioner on 12th June, 1985 to the Director of Industries for disbursement of subsidy to the petitioner. Correspondence continued between the petitioner and the Industries Department and the deficiencies as pointed out from time to time are alleged to have been completed/complied. It is stated that for the first time on 28th February, 1988, the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled for subsidy on account of being not registered under the Subsidy Scheme. Number of requests were made to waive the condition of registration and finally the petitioner was informed on 21.4.1988 that since the certificate regarding registration under the Subsidy scheme is not produced, the claim cannot be entertained, but as soon as the certificate is produced the matter would be placed before the Committee for re-consideration. The petitioner alleged to have submitted the application for registration on 29th April, 1988 and again on 10th May, 1988. Request was also made that the application for registration be treated effective from 10th June, 1985. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14th March, 1989 that the scheme was operative till 30th September. 1988 and has not been extended. The matter of the petitioner was considered by the Committee on 2nd July, 1983 (sic) and since the investment was made before registration, the application was rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not informed regarding condition of registration after the application was submitted in 1985 and that the condition of registration is not mandatory condition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Baldwa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Bhilwara v. Union of India, 1994 (3) WLC (Raj.) 276 . The decision of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1992 SC 152 has also been relied upon.
(3.) Mr. Kasliwal learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that vide Circular dated 30.12.1983 it was pointed out that the procedure and format etc. of the scheme published by the Central Government known as 10% Central Out-right/Grant or Subsidy-1971 for industrial unit to be set-up in selected back-ward districts or areas shall be applicable. The Central Subsidy Scheme was amended from 1.3.1973 and the percentage of subsidy was increased to 15%. At the time when the application for registration for subsidy was submitted on 12th June, 1985 the petitioner was not eligible as it was not registered with the Department of Industries under the Subsidy Scheme. The Committee in its meeting on 15th October, 1987 found that the company has not assigned any reason of its non-registration under the Subsidy Scheme before submitting the application for grant of subsidy and accordingly the petitioner was informed on 25th February, 1988. The waiver which was sought could not have been permitted since the company had made the investment during the period from 12.8.83 to 30.6.1984 and the claim for subsidy is permissible for the period three years back to the date of registration. The subsidy scheme has been dis-continued on 31.12.1988. Since the petitioner was not registered, he was not entitled for the subsidy. The registration for claiming the subsidy is required to be made prior to, the investment.;