- (1.) THIS contempt case has been filed alleging non compliance of the interim order dated 25.04.2011, passed in WPC No. 991 of 2011.
(2.) IN the show cause filed on behalf of opposite parties on 11.11.2011, it was said that they are taking steps to comply the said order, for which certain formalities were to be complied. IN the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner on 25.11.2011, it was said that the formalities, if any, had already been complied much earlier. However, they were complied again. On 01.12.2011, the opposite parties filed a petition for extension of time to comply the order. A supplementary show cause was filed on 16.12.2011. In paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof, it was said that the interest subsidy for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09, to which the petitioner was eligible, was calculated to the tune of Rs.28,22,280/-. On 19.1.2012, a further show cause was filed. In paragraph 9 thereof, it was said that the said subsidy amount will be sanctioned after approval of budgetary provision and in paragraph 11, it was said that sanction of the budgetary provision has to be placed before the State Level Empowered Committee after obtaining approval of Departmental Minister. Then a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner saying inter alia that the opposite parties are bent upon to harass the petitioner and are bent upon not to comply the order in question. It was pointed out that the draft dated 21.12.2011 was retained by the concerned opposite parties and was paid to the petitioner only with the draft dated 22.03.2012. It was also said that petitioner was informed orally that as the petitioner's Industry was closed temporarily due to maintenance work from 23rd November, 2011, the interest subsidy amount will not be paid. This statement of the petitioner finds support from the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties on 27.04.2012, in which it was said that an information was received vide letter dated 30.03.2012 from the General Manager District Industries Centre, Giridih that petitioner's Industry was closed from 23rd November, 2011 for maintenance work.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State submitted that the date of production of petitioner's Industry is 2.1.2008 and it has to continue production for five years i.e. up to 2.01.2013 to be eligible to get interest subsidy. Mr. Gadodia controverted such submission. He submitted that from paragraph 14 of the supplementary show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties on 16.12.2011 itself, it will appear that during the years in question i.e. 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Industry was not closed. He indicated to the figures of Sale. He further submitted that on the ground of subsequent closure for maintenance work from 23.11.2011 onward, the amount of interest subsidy cannot be withheld. He referred to clause 29.5 of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 to show that there is no requirement of running the Industry continuously for five years for being eligible to get the interest subsidy. Referring to the judgement dated 23.03.2012, passed in WPC No. 3359 of 2011, he submitted that moreover no condition can be imposed by the executives nullifying the Industrial Policy.;