D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, who had preferred W.P.(C) No. 4809 of 2004 for getting- (a) Capital subsidy; (b) Captive power generating subsidy; and (c) Interest subsidy in terms of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. This petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2016 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellant:
(2.) Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in pursuance of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, this appellant (original petitioner) established a small-scale industry. This appellant is manufacturing Behive Hard Coke and Slurry Washed Coal. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there are recommendations made by the Government Officers for this appellant for interest subsidy as per Annexure- 2 and 3. There is also recommendation for capital investment subsidy at Annexure-4 and there is also recommendation by the Government Officers to give power generating subsidy as per Annexure 4/1. These subsidies were given by the respondents-State of Jharkhand to this appellant and hence, W.P.(C) No. 4809 of 2004 was preferred. Counsel appearing for the appellant has also placed reliance upon Clause No. 37 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 that a notification should have been issued for withdrawal of the subsidy. Moreover, it is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that as per order, at Annexure-6/1, which is dated 14.12.2004, the industrial policy cannot be altered or amended and even if it is altered or amended, no retrospective effect can be given. This appellant has already established an industry in pursuance of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and therefore, as per the said policy, this appellant is entitled to get interest subsidy at the rate of Rs. 25,928/-, capital investment subsidy at Rs. 6.66 lakh and power generating subsidy at Rs. 85,856/-. These figures have been taken from Annexure-3, Annexure-4 and Annexure-4/1. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the industry of this appellant is covered by Clause-10 of Annexure-III of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, judgment and order, delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 29.06.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 4809 of 2004 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decisions in the cases of "Vaishnavi Ferro Tech (P) Limited v. State of Jharkhand & others", reported in 2015 (1) JLJR 399 and "Devi Multiplex & another v. State of Gujarat & others", reported in 2015 (3) JLJR 242 (SC). Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondents-State:
(3.) Counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that Industrial Policy, floated by the State of Jharkhand, as Clause No. 15, which prescribes negative list of the industries, which are eligible for incentives. As per Annexure-III of the Industrial Policy, floated by the State of Jharkhand at Serial No.10, industries, which are coal/coke screening industry, are entitled to any incentive, under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that the industry established by this appellant (original petitioner) is for manufacturing of Behive Hard Coke and Slurry Washed Coal. Thus, it is basically a coal/coke screening industry. These aspects of the matters have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge because such type of industry are eligible for incentives. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that the recommendation, which is annexed with the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, is nothing, but, a recommendation only. No final decision has been given by the Government in favour of this appellant ever before. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents-State that Clause- 37 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 has been relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, but, this Clause-37 is meant for the withdrawal of the incentive, if at all such incentive has been given. In the facts of the present case, the industry, established by this appellant, was never entitled to any incentive under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and hence, no question whatsoever arises for issuance of a notification under Clause-37; even otherwise also, the said Industrial Policy is no more in force after 31.03.2005 and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal cannot be entertained by this Court. Reasons;