R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to sanction and disburse the balance amount of interest free loan to it in compliance of the judgment dated 23.9.1993 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 587 of 1992 (R).
(2.) PETITIONER 's case is that it expanded its industrial unit and after such expansion, production started on 31.12.1987. As per the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1986 contained in Resolution No. 13730 dated 1.1.1986, it was entitled to certain incentives/exemptions. As the same was not granted, the petitioner had to move this Court by filing the said writ petition which was disposed of on 23rd September, 1993. The relevant portion of the said order is referred:.In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits in terms of the aforementioned resolution No. 13730 of 1st September, 1986 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application, inasmuch as, the petitioners' case is squarely governed by the aforementioned three decisions. Learned G.P.I, however, drew my attention to the counter affidavit and submitted that the matter relating to grant of all facilities in terms of the aforementioned resolution is pending before the State Level Committee. In this view of the matter, the respondents including the State Level Committee are hereby directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner as early as possible and pay all the lawful dues to the petitioner in terms of the policy decision of the State of Bihar as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further submitted that as the said order was not complied fully, a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 90 of 1995 (R) was filed which was disposed of on 1.8.1995 with liberty to move before proper forum for the remaining grievances. Accordingly, petitioner made representation stating inter alia that only Rs. 68,625/ - was paid against the period 1.1.1988 to 31.3.1989. It claimed interest free loan for the remaining period i.e. 1.4.1989 to 31.12.1992 but by order dated 24.11.1995 (Annexure 6) a sum of Rs. 97,263/ - only was sanctioned/paid against the said period referring to some old inapplicable resolutions/letters dated 28.11.1979 and 20.1.1981. Petitioner had to file a representation again claiming full amount, but by letter dated 1.3.1996 (Annexure 8), it was rejected saying that in case the sales tax assessment are complete, full amount; otherwise 75% of the tax amount; or 50% of the capital investment; whichever is lower, is to be disbursed as interest free loan and, accordingly, the said amounts have been rightly disbursed on the basis of capital investment. It is submitted that such provisions might be there in the old policies/circulars, but there was no such provision in the 1986 Policy. Further by letter dated 15.4.1996 (Annexure 10), the respondent No. 3 wrongly justified such action, interpreting Note (a) to Clause 9(2)(b) of the Policy which was applicable to large and medium industries, whereas petitioner was a small scale industry.
(3.) IT was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the one hand, the State Government declares incentives for industrial growth and on the other hand, the Government authorities frustrate such policies on some pretext or other for the reasons known to them. Petitioner was compelled to move this Court. It was held by this Court that petitioner was entitled to incentives under the Industrial Policy of 1986. Even then the respondents did not disburse the full amount of interest free loan to which it was entitled, on wholly untenable grounds, and in arbitrary manner.;