IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 5504 of 2003(E) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VIVEK D.BAGADE, MANAGER OF PRASANTHI TILE WORKS, RESIDING AT CERAMICS ROAD, KASARAGOD-671 121. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 5504 of 2003(E) Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: Copy of the Lease Deed dtd.31.10.1990 executed between the Kanara Ceramics Limited and M/s.Bagade & Company. P2: Copy of the order dtd.9.12.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner. Respondents' Exhibits:- Nil. ( true copy ) PA to Judge. kvs/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= OP.No.5504 of 2003-E. ========================= Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P2 whereby the application of the petitioner for investment subsidy was rejected, this writ petition has been filed. The unit in question is named M/s.Prasanthi Tile Works which is owned by a registered partnership firm M/s.Bagade & Company. They obtained on lease a unit called M/s.Kasaragode Tile Works from M/s.Kanara Ceramics Ltd; Kasargode. The Central Government in 1978 had started grant of subsidy to small scale industrial units and in accordance with the above scheme the petitioner put in the application claiming the benefits. By Ext.P2 it was rejected on the ground that the bills produced are not in the name of M/s.Prasanthi Tile Works and since the expenditure cannot be established to have done for it, the unit is not eligible for subsidy. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if OP.No.5504 of 2003-E. -: 2 :- an opportunity was given to the petitioner before rejection of the application, the petitioner would have been able to satisfy the competent authority about their eligibility for grant of subsidy. But in Ext.P2 an adverse inference was taken against the petitioner with reference to the documents produced by them without giving them an opportunity. 3. The proceedings does not show that before passing Ext.P2 they were given an opportunity to explain the alleged defects if any. In that view of the matter, I think the proper course is to direct the 2nd respondent to re-consider the matter afresh after allowing an opportunity to the petitioner to file appropriate representation and giving a personal hearing also. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-