1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4666/2004 Toshcon Jesco (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :- 03.08.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Ajeet Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mr.Inderjeet Saini, AAG for the State. Aggrieved by the recovery of the subsidy amount of Rs.4,65,593/- vide order dated 19.06.2002, the petitioner- Company has challenged the same before this Court. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-Company is duly registered with District Industries Center, Ajmer ('DIC', for short). A provisional registration certificate was granted by DIC on 30.03.1993 for two years to the petitioner-Company which was extended for one year on 30.03.1995. Ultimately, a permanent registration certificate was granted on 28.02.1996. The petitioner-Company being a Tiny Unit applied for grant of State Capital Investment subsidy under State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for new Industries, 1990 on 06th February, 1996 for an amount of Rs.5,32,359/-. Vide letter 2 dated 15.02.1996, the General Manager, DIC pointed out two defects in the application for subsidy namely, (i) Rent deed of the premises not attached, (ii) Copy of registration of the petitioner unit not attached. The petitioner-Company was asked to supply above documents for taking further action. Meanwhile vide letter dated 28.02.1996, the petitioner-Company submitted additional documents, affidavit, copy of registration, copy of rent deed. After careful consideration of the petitioner's application, the District Level committee, in its meeting held on 19.04.1996, sanctioned a subsidy of Rs.4,65,593/- to the petitioner. The sanction letter was issued by the DIC on 06.05.1996. Subsequently, vide letter dated 08.07.1996, the Joint Director, DIC asked the petitioner-Company to get the lease deed duly registered and to furnish the copy of the same to the Department. Vide letter dated 29.08.1996, the petitioner- Company furnished all the required documents which includes guarantee deed, original title deeds, certificates, Registered Lease Deed. In the first week of September, 1996 the Joint Director, DIC in a personal meeting asked the petitioner- Company to furnish another copy of guarantee deed, title deed, certificate, Rent Deed etc. Vide forwarding letter dated 07.09.1996, the petitioner-Company submitted all the required documents. Ultimately, the respondents being fully satisfied on all aspect of the matter released the subsidy amount of Rs.4,65,593/-, which was received by the petitioner-Company on 16.10.1996. On 11.03.2002, the officers of DIC inspected the 3 factory premises of the petitioner-Company. Vide letter dated 03.04.2002 the respondent No.3 asked the petitioner-Company to supply certain documents to meet out the audit objections. The petitioner-Company gave detailed reply to this letter on 29.04.2002. Suddenly, vide letter dated 19.06.2002, the respondent No.3 passed an order for depositing the subsidy amount of Rs.4,55,593 with interest @ 15% failing which the proceedings for recovery of the subsidy was to commence. Since the petitioner-Company a received notice for attachment and sale of its property, it has deposited an amount of Rs.9,10,817 under protest to the respondent No.6. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company, has contended that vide letter dated 03.04.2002, the General Manager, DIC had asked the petitioner-Company to submit certain documents. Through a detailed letter dated 29.04.2002, the petitioner-Company had not only pointed out that all the documents have already been filed by the petitioner-Company, but had also pointed out that these documents were readily available. Despite the clear cut reply, still vide order dated 19.06.2002, the subsidy granted by the respondents was directed to be recovered. He has further contended that the impugned order dated 19.06.2002 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company. During the course of arguments, he drew 4 the attention of this Court on paras 22, 23 & 24 of the writ petition which elaborately deal with the letter dated 29.04.2002. He has further contended that the said paras were never denied by the respondents. This Court has asked Mr. Inder Raj Saini, the learned AAG, to show where these paras have been denied by the respondents in the reply. He has frankly conceded that there is no denial in the reply. But, he has tried to argue that through the additional affidavit, subsequently filed by the respondents, they have denied these paras. However, a bare perusal of the additional affidavit clearly reveals that the affidavit was filed merely for the purpose of bringing certain documents on record. Thus, the contents of paras 22, 23 & 24 have no where been denied by the respondents. Hence, this Court accepts the averments made in paras 22, 23 & 24 of the writ petition. According to the letter dated 29.04.2002, it was clearly pointed out that the documents required by the respondents were already available with them. Moreover, there is nothing to show in the record that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner-Company by the respondents prior to passing of the impugned order dated 19.06.2002. In case the respondents wished to proceed for recovery of their subsidy amount, and as they were about to adversely affect the 5 rights of the petitioner, the respondents were legally bound to issue a notice and to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Company prior to passing the impugned order dated 19.06.2002. However, in the present case no such opportunity was given. Thus, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in passing the impugned order. In these facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed. The order dated 19.06.2002 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,65,593/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum. The refund shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No costs. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki