S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by M/s. Usha Martin Industries Limited (Usha Alloys and Steel Division) against the judgment dated 20th December, 1996 passed in CWJC No. 2023 of 1996 (R) whereby and whereunder the writ petition preferred by the appellant for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant power subsidy has been rejected.
(2.) BEFORE discussion on merit of the case, I may mention that the appellant has not given relevant dates of incidence in the writ petition or LPA, has made vague pleading and one may confuse as to what relief the appellant sought for. It appears that M/s. Usha Martin Industries Ltd. has chain of companies division under it one of them is M/s. Usha Martin Industries (Wire -rope Division) and other is Usha Alloys and Steel Division of M/s. Usha Martin Industries. The present case has been preferred by Usha Alloy and Steel Division of M/s. Usha Martin Industries. Under Industrial Policy of the State, various incentives were allowed such as capital investment subsidy, subsidy on purchase and installation of captive diesel/ K. Oil, generator set, subsidy in respect of consumption of electricity (power subsidy), sales tax relief etc. The present case relates to grant of power subsidy. The State Government issued Industrial Policy, 1981 vide Resolution No. 1153 dated 20th January, 1981 followed by Industrial Policy, 1986 vide Resolution No. 13730, dated 1st September, 1986. The appellant derived some benefits of incentive policy. The Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation, Patna (BICICO for short) asked the appellant to return the amount received by appellant as subsidy, including power subsidy followed by letter No. 3750, dated 2nd February, 1995 which gave rise to the dispute and filing of writ petition. The writ petition CWJC No. 2023/96 (R) was preferred by appellant for issuance of writ of mandamus on the respondents to fulfill their promise made through the Industrial Policy, 1981 and Industrial Policy, 1986 for grant of power subsidy.
(3.) THE case of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that the appellant having expanded its unit and having started production on expansion from 1st October, 1986, is entitled for power incentive for a period of five years from the date of production on expansion. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 20th December, 1996 mainly on the ground of delay.;