IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 36080 of 2004(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.GEO ACQUATIC PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED., VELUTHULLI ROAD, CHANDIROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.G. FELIX. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, ALAPPUZHA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMED ANZAR K.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.36080/2004 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.4/94/ID DTD. 04/01/1993. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF MPEDA TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 19/11/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE CHARTERED ENGINEER SHOWING THE LIST OF MACHINERIES ERRECTED IN THE PLANT OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 12/09/2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TWO CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE MPEDA, ONE DTD. 19/09/2002 AND ANOTHER DTD.NIL. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 03/12/2002. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT RELATING TO THE ASSETS OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 29/01/2003. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss KURIAN JOSEPH, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36080 OF 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Challenge is on Exhibit P9 order passed by the first respondent. The issue pertains to the claim made by the petitioner for investment subsidy. That request has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has received subsidy from the Marine Products Export Development Authority (M.P.E.D.A). 2. I am afraid, that stand cannot be appreciated, in view of the provisions in the Manual for State Investment Subsidy (Exhibit P1). To the extent relevant, paragraph 4 of the said manual reads as follows: “There shall be a ceiling of Rs.15/20 lakhs payable to a unit under a legal entity, as the case may be, Subsidy received from other Government agencies shall be deducted from eligible subsidy payable under the scheme. While computing the ceiling amount for payment of State Investment Subsidy, assets for which subsidy is available from MPEDA will be excluded”. The last portion of paragraph 4 makes the position clear to the effect that, for the only reason that subsidy has been received W.P.(C)36080/04 2 from M.P.E.D.A, the eligibility of the petitioner for investment subsidy from the Government cannot be rejected, since what is intended in the manual is only to exclude the assets for which subsidy is available from M.P.E.D.A. Therefore, after excluding the assets for which subsidy has been availed by the petitioner from the M.P.E.D.A, the petitioner will be entitled for subsidy for the rest. I quash Exhibit P9 with a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter in the light of this judgment and disburse the eligible subsidy to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. smp W.P.(C)36080/04 3 KURIAN JOSEPH, J. W.P.(C) No.36080 OF 2004 J U D G M E N T 22.10.2008