IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 29724 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RUBY SURESH, D/O N.HARIHARAN NAIR, "KARTHIKA", OPP. POST OFFICE, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA SRI.A.S.BRIJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALGHAT. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALGHAT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 19724/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.8.4.03. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.4.07 OF R3. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.23.5.07 TO R1. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29724 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the proprietor of an SSI unit. The unit is manufacturing fibre roofing sheets, sky light domes, doors, door frames, windows, kitchen cabinets, dining tables, bucket chair, lawn benches, waste bins bath tubs, shower tray, water tanks, septic tanks, chemical tanks, PVC building material etc. Apart from the manufacturing unit, the petitioner has set up a marketing unit also, separately by constructing a showroom for the purpose of marketing the products manufactured in her small scale industrial unit. By Ext.P1 Government order, the Government offered investment subsidy on the fixed capital investment to provide finance to organizations for marketing SSI products of the State, particularly in the area of setting up of show rooms, expenditure towards installing improved packaging machineries, quality certification expenditure, expenditure towards marketing consultancy services etc. In accordance with Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted an application for investment subsidy for the showroom constructed by the petitioner for marketing the products manufactured in her SSI unit. Her application was rejected by Ext.P2 on the ground that the petitioner has constructed the showroom as a storage area for her own products and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the benefits of Ext.P1 Government order, meaning thereby that the subsidy is available for marketing products manufactured by w.p.c.29724/07 2 other SSI units. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of certiorari any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing exhibit P2; and (ii) issue a writ of mandamus, any other appropriate writ order or direction to grant subsidy to the petitioner in accordance with Exhibit P1.” 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 has been passed on the mistaken notion that Ext.P1 notification is applicable only for marketing products of other SSI units and not for marketing own products. According to the petitioner, there is nothing in Ext.P1 which suggests that for marketing own products, the subsidy is unavailable. The counsel for the petitioner takes me through Ext.P1 scheme to buttress her arguments. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the impugned order is sought to be sustained. The counter affidavit also proceeds on the basis that Ext.P1 Government order is applicable only for setting up of marketing units for marketing of third party's products and not for marketing products manufactured by self. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Ext.P1 is the scheme. We have to consider the eligibility of the petitioner on the basis of the plain meaning of Ext.P1. The opening portion of the scheme reads thus: “The scheme is called marketing Scheme / Incentive for Marketing. Two types of assistances are contemplated under this scheme. 15% Margin Money loan on working capital and 15% Investment subsidy on w.p.c.29724/07 3 fixed capital investment. The scheme intended to provide finance to organizations for marketing SSI products of the State particularly in the area of setting up of show rooms, expenditure towards installing improved packaging machineries, quality certification expenditure (HACCP etc.), expenditure towards marketing consultancy services etc., NGOs, Industrial Cluster Consortiums, Co-operative Societies (especially those managed by women) and individuals.” (underlining supplied) 6. The argument of the learned Government Pleader is that the scheme envisages providing of finance to organizations for marketing SSI products of the State. According to him, the petitioner is seeking to market products of her own unit and not products of others. Therefore, the petitioner is excluded from the purview of Ext.P1 is the contention of the learned Government Pleader. The Government Pleader stresses the word, “products” used in plural. According to him, if the intention was to give subsidy for own products as well, the word would have been “product”. I do not find any merit in that contention. I do not think that the Government could have used the word “products” in singular in Ext.P1, if the object of Ext.P1 is to be achieved. The notification is applicable to all SSI products of the State. It is not confined to one singular product. Therefore, the word must necessarily be “products” in plural and not in singular. The notification does not bar a person marketing his/her own products from being eligible for the subsidy offered by Ext.P1. The scheme is intended for providing finance for marketing SSI products of the State. The petitioner's is an SSI unit. She produces and markets products. w.p.c.29724/07 4 Therefore, the products manufactured in the SSI unit of the petitioner are SSI products of the State. The Government order does not draw a distinction between marketing of own products and products manufactured by others. If a person manufacturing SSI products does have a marketing establishment as well, the applicant is entitled to claim benefit under Ext.P1 notwithstanding the fact that the marketing establishment is for marketing his/her own product. In that view, clearly the reasoning in Ext.P2 is totally unsustainable. Accordingly , Ext.P2 is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for benefits under Ext.P1 in accordance with clause 2.12 of Ext.P1 on the basis of the above finding. If the amount claimed as subsidy by the petitioner is less than ` 2 lakhs, the 3rd respondent shall pass orders on the same. If it is above ` 2 lakhs, the 1st respondent shall consider the claim. The same shall be considered and orders passed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The amount of subsidy computed in accordance with Ext.P1 shall be disbursed to the petitioner within a further period of one month therefrom. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.29724/07 5