MANIPUR JANATA FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to cancel the letter dated 11.10.89 of the Director of Industries, Manipur, to the Senior Government Advocate, Manipur, for placing the minutes of the State Level Committee meeting held on 28.9.89 before this Court and for a direction on the respondents to make a payment of Central Investment Subsidy of Rs.23.28 lacs, less the amount already paid, to the petitioner.

(2.) The facts briefly are that on 26.8.71, the Central Government announced a Scheme of Central Investment Subsidy for Industries set up in backward areas which included the Districts of the State of Manipur. M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill, a partnership firm, submitted an application on 26.7.74 to the Government of India, Ministry of Industries & Civil Supplies, Department of Industrial Development for grant of Industrial licence for setting up a Roller Flour Mill of an annual capacity of 36,000 M.Ts. and on 22.3.75, the Government of India, Ministry of Industries & Civil Spplies, Department of Industrial Development issued a letter of insent in favour of M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill for setting up of Roller Flour Mill. A loan of.12.5 lacs was then sanctioned by the Assam State Financial Corporation by letter dated 27.9.76 in favour of the said M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill for setting up of the said Mill. The partnership firm thereafter started construction and installation of Roller Flour Mill and on 19.9.97 applied to the State Level Committee for Central Investment Subsidy. When the State Level Committee did not sanction the Central Investment Subsidy, the said Partnership firm, M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill, moved this Court in Civil Rule No:27/79 for appropriate relief. During the pendency of the said Civil Rule, however, an amount of Rs.4,71,418/- was sanctioned and paid, in the meanwhile, the said Firm faced difficulties in procuring the controlled commodities mainly building materials such as mild steels, RS Joists, cements and CGI sheets, for construction of the Roller Flour Mill and in the circumstances there was delay in execution of the said project and as a result of such delay the cost of the project escalated and a revised project report had to be prepared with the help of North Eastern Industrial Consultant Limited and as per the revised project report the cost of the project worked out at Rs.1.08 crore and the same was submitted on 16.1.88 before the Director of Industries, Government of Manipur, who was the Member-Secretary of the State Level Committee. Thereafter, by a letter dated 22.9.88 of the Ministry of Industry, Govt of India, the Central Investment Subsidy was discontinued for non-manufacturing units. But by a subsequent letter dated 21.7.89 of the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, the State Govt. was informed that on representations of various State Governments it had been decided that the Government of India would continue to reimburse the State Govt. in respect of the subsidy disbursed to non-manufacturing units, if certain conditions were satisfied. Civil Rule No.27/79 was then disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.9.89 with a direction to the State Level Committee to reconsider whether the petitioner-firm M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill was entitled to get the Central Investment Subsidy under the Scheme approved by the Government of India in view of the changed circumstances conveyed by the Government of India, Ministry of Industry, by the aforesaid letter dated 21.7.89. Pursuant to the said directions in Civil Rule No.27/79, the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.9.89 took a view that under the letter dated21.7.89 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Industry, reimbursement to the State Government of subsidy disbursement to the non- manufacturing units was permissible provided the project was approved by the State Level Committee before 30.9.88. But the case of the petitioner M/s. Manipur Janata Flour Mill (which has now converted into a private limited company in the meanwhile ) was not approved by the State Level Committee before 30.9.88. Ail the said State Level Committee's meeting held on 28.9.89, it was further decided to place this fact before this Court and by the impugned letter dated 11.10.89 of the Director of Industries to the Senior Government Advocate, Manipur, and the aforesaid fact relating to the decision of the State Level Committee was placed before this Court.

(3.) At the hearing of this writ petition, Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the aforesaid M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill, which was a partnership firm, was now converted into a private limited Co. styled as Manipur Janata Flour Mill Private Limited. He submitted that the view taken by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 29.8.89 that the petitioner was not entitled to the Central Investment Subsidy is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He cited a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesha Textile & Anr.-Vs- Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6240/94 disposed of on 5.12.95) in which the Supreme Court has agreed with the view taken by Mrs.Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion in her order passed on 16.11.95 that all applications for Central Investment Subsidy filed upto 30.9.88 could be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy provided the said applications were complete in terms of the Scheme dated 26.8.71 as modified from time to time. He took me through the Scheme dated 26.8.71 as modified from time to time and submitted that the application for Central Investment Subsidy had been filed by M/s. Manipur Janata Flour Mill well before 30.9.88 and that the said application was complete in terms of the Scheme dated 26.8.71 as modified from time to time. In particular, Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh referred to [paragraph 2.3 of the Manual for Central Investment Subsidy Scheme in which the informations/ documents which were to accompany the application for Central Investment Subsidy were given and submitted that all informations/ documents were furnished by the said firm along with its application. Hence it is a fit case where a direction should be issued to the State Level Committee to sanction and disburse the amount of Rs.23.28 lacs, less the amount of Rs.4,71,718/- already received by the said firm. In support of his submission, Mr. Nandakumr took me through the order dated 16.11.95 of Mrs. Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Industry with which the Supreme Court agreed while disposing of Civil Appeal Wo.6240/94.