CWP NO. 3948 OF 1990. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3948 of 1990. Date of Decision: 24th December, 2008. M/s Om Rice & General Mills ....Petitioner through Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. Ms. Amarpreet Sandhu, Advocate Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 3948 to 3952 of 1990 and 9825 of 1993 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 3948 of 1990. [2]. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.8.1989 [Annexure P-9] and the Government of India's instructions dated 21.7.1989 [Annexure P-10]. The petitioner also seeks a Mandamus directing the respondents to release the Central Investment Subsidy amounting to Rs.1,30,600/-. [3]. The facts giving rise to these cases are as follows:- [4]. The Government of India notified a Scheme on 21st September, 1971 known as “Central Outright Grant/Subsidy for the Industrial Units to be set up in the selected backward Districts/ Areas”. The Scheme was amended from time to time in terms CWP NO. 3948 OF 1990. ::-2-:: whereof the eligible industrial units were entitled up to 15% Central Investment Subsidy on the Fixed Capital Investment made on or after 1st March, 1973 or Rs.15 lacs whichever was less. It was admissible to the new Industrial Units as well as the existing Industrial Units engaged in the manufacturing of the items specified in Part-B of Annexure “II” appended to the Scheme. The subsidy amount was disbursable through the State Government agencies, like, [i] Directorate of Industries; [ii] State Regional Development Corporations; [iii] Nationalized Banks; and/or [iv] any other agency duly authorized by the State Government. [5]. Amongst the list of backward Districts/areas notified under the aforesaid Scheme, the Districts of Hoshiarpur, Sangrur and Bathinda of Punjab State were also included. [6]. The petitioner was registered as a Small Scale Industrial unit vide Registration Certificate dated 23rd October, 1987 [Annexure P-3]. Even before that, the petitioner appears to have applied on 23rd September, 1987 [Annexure P-4] to the District Industries Centre, Bathinda to register it as a unit eligible to avail the Central Investment Subsidy. The petitioner unit's application for the grant of Central Investment Subsidy was examined by the Punjab Financial Corporation – being the authorized agency under the Central Government Scheme and certain deficiencies having been pointed out therein, the petitioner provided the requisite information including the SSI Registration Certificate on 14th November, 1987. The Memorandum for the grant of Central Subsidy was thereafter sent in April, 1988, through the office of the District Industries Centre to the CWP NO. 3948 OF 1990. ::-3-:: District Level Committee which approved the petitioner's subsidy claim in its meeting held on 25th November, 1988. Its proceedings were circulated on 1st December, 1988. [7]. Admittedly, before the petitioner unit's claim for the grant of Central Subsidy could be considered and approved in the District Level Committee, the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme expired on 31st March, 1988. However, after a series of representations, the Central Government extended the Scheme from 1st April, 1988 to 30th September, 1988 vide notification dated 3rd May, 1988 [Annexure R1] which was circulated by the Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development on 3rd August, 1988. The Government of India thereafter issued the impugned Circular dated 21st July, 1989 [Annexure P-1] clarifying that the benefit of extension of the Scheme from 1st April, 1988 to 30th September, 1988 shall be admissible to only those Industrial Units who satisfy the following twin conditions:- “[i] The project was approved by the Approval Committee, i.e., State Level Committee or the District Level Committee as the case may be on or before 30.9.1988; [ii] The disbursement are made before 31.12.1989”. [8]. In the case of the petitioner unit, since the aforementioned Condition No. [i] was not satisfied as the District Level Committee had approved its case after the cut off date, i.e., 25th November, 1988, the benefit of the subsidy was denied to it vide the impugned order-cum-letter dated 17th August, 1989 [Annexure P9]. [9]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [10]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some CWP NO. 3948 OF 1990. ::-4-:: length and perused the material on record. In my considered view, there is no merit in these writ petitions and the same must fail. [11]. The subject “Central Subsidy Scheme” was not referable to any Statute nor was it statutory in character. It was essentially an administrative order which, after having remained in force with a number of extensions, ceased to operate w.e.f. 31st March, 1988. The right, if at all any, to claim subsidy under the Central Scheme could accrue in favour of an industrial unit subject to fulfillment of eligibility and its approval by the District Level Committee. The Scheme does not envisage the release of subsidy merely on installation of an industrial unit in the notified backward Districts/areas. There are other pre-requisite conditions which essentially demand consideration of the claim by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner neither attributes lack of bona-fide nor complains of any procedural delay on the part of the mechanism notified in the State of Punjab for implementation of the Central Subsidy Scheme. The facts on record reveal that by the time the Scheme came to an end on 31st March, 1988, the petitioner's application was in the pipeline only, at the best, giving rise to a hope that if found eligible, the petitioner might get the subsidy. The said hope neither culminated into a legitimate expectation nor was ripe enough to enforce promissory estoppel against the respondents. [12]. So far as conditional revival of the Subsidy Scheme from 1st April, 1988 to 30th September, 1988 is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner does not fulfill those conditions as its claim for the Central Subsidy was approved by the District Level Committee after the cut CWP NO. 3948 OF 1990. ::-5-:: off date. The extension of the Scheme for a short duration, therefore, also does not advance the petitioner's cause. [13]. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The Central Subsidy Scheme during the period when it was enforceable postulated establishment of an Industrial unit which is actually in operation. The laudable object behind the Scheme was to promote and facilitate industrialization. The certificates relied upon by the petitioner suggest that it came into production on 15th October, 1987 only. In my considered view, the petitioner was ineligible to apply for the Central Subsidy Scheme unless it came into production. The petitioner, on the other hand, claims to have applied even before it became operational, i.e., on 23rd September, 1987. The selective information on record gives rise to a lurking suspicion as if the exercise of registration as an 'industrial unit' etc. was undertaken as a ploy to take benefit of the Central Subsidy Scheme without rendering any actual product. Such like disputed questions of fact can not be effectively adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and the appropriate course for the petitioner would have been to approach the Civil Court in order to prove their claim. Such was the recourse followed by this Court in some-what similar circumstances in CWP No. 9954 of 1990 [M/s Shiv Shakti Industries v Union of India & Ors., decided on 3rd October, 1990. [14]. For the reasons aforementioned, these writ petitions are dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. December 24, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE