IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31911 of 2010(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.MOHANAN, KANNITTAYIL COIR INDUSTRIES, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 583. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SMT. M.U. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SRI. BRIJESH MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, COIR BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, MANORANJINI, T.C.9/1821, SRL-C-36, SANKAR LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 3. THE EXTENSION SERVICE OFFICER, COIR BOARD, NEW MODEL SOCIETY BUILDING, CCNB ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM-691 001. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MSME, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-1. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA, R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 31911 of 2010 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has set up a Small Scale Industrial Unit with registration as evidenced by Ext.P1. Accordingly, petitioner commenced production on 12-12-2008. At that time, Ext.P2 scheme for financial assistance to coir units implemented by the respondents was in force. As per the said scheme, a Unit which commenced production with registration under the Coir Industry (Registration and Licences) Rules, 1958, but, had not completed 12 months from the date of commencement of production was eligible to make application for the benefits of the scheme. 2. Accordingly, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application, which, according to the respondents, was received by them only on 20-11-2009. Though by Ext.P4, the third respondent recommended the petitioner's application, the request was rejected as per Ext.P5 order passed by the W.P.(C) No.31911/10 : 2 : second respondent. It is challenging Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed. 3. Ext.P5 reads as under:- “ Please refer to the above, it is informed that the Scheme for extension of Financial Assistance to coir unit being implemented through the Coir Board has been revised by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises(MSME), Government of India during the XI Plan Period. As per the Operational Guidelines, the revised rate of assistance will be applicable to new coir units commencing production w.e.f. 01-04-2009 but had not completed six months from the date of commencement of production. The old scheme has closed w.e.f. 31-03-2009 and the assistance at the old rate will be extended to the applications received and pending with Coir Board upto 31-03-2009. In this connection, it is bring to your kind notice that your unit had commenced production in December, 2008 and applied for Financial Assistance only on 20-11-2009. W.P.(C) No.31911/10 : 3 : As the date of commencement of production is before 31-03-2009, and the application was not received/pending with Coir Board as on 31-03-2009, this office is not in a position to extend the assistance under the scheme. Hence, the original application along with enclosures are returned herewith.” 4. A reading of Ext.P5 thus shows that Ext.P2 scheme was in force only till 31-03-2009 and that the same was replaced by Ext.P6 with effect from 01-04-2009. Going by the terms of Ext.P6, a unit registered under the Coir Industry (Registration and Licences) Rules, 1958, but, had not completed six months from the date of commencement on production alone were eligible for the benefit of Ext.P6. Ext.P6 further provides that applications under Ext.P2 scheme, which were received up to 31-03-2009, will be processed under Ext.P2. 5. Thus, it is obvious that on 20-11-2009, when the petitioner made Ext.P3 application for the benefit of Ext.P2, the said scheme was not in force and in November, 2009, W.P.(C) No.31911/10 : 4 : when the petitioner applied, petitioner was ineligible for the benefit of Ext.P6 also. Therefore, the view taken in Ext.P5, rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be faulted. 6. However, petitioner contends that the restrictions imposed on the eligibility to the detriment of the petitioner as per Ext.P6, are illegal and against the principles of promissory estoppal. In my view, in the facts of this case, the principles of promissory estoppal cannot be imported, for the reason that as on the date when the petitioner made the application, Ext.P2 scheme was not in force. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks