Civil Writ Petition No. 9864 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9864 of 1995 Date of decision : 07.07.2011 Nizampuria Cement Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) In this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the subsidy amount of `6,64,500/- which was payable to the petitioner in the year 1994-95. The brief factual background of the case is that petitioner- company established a manufacturing unit of O.P.C. cement in the year 1992 in the backward area of District Mohindergarh. The petitioner- company claims to have taken a loan of `39.00 lacs from the Haryana Financial Corporation for setting up the said industry. On 29.03.1995, the State Government sanctioned a subsidy of `4,24,500/- under the State subsidy scheme. Another amount of `2,40,000/- was sanctioned as G-set subsidy. However, the amount of subsidy was never released to the Civil Writ Petition No. 9864 of 1995 2 petitioner-company. Resultantly, the petitioner preferred the instant petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after sanctioning of subsidy it was the legitimate expectation of the petitioner- company that the amount sanctioned would be released to it. According to him, the petitioner-company set-up a unit in the backward area in view of various concessions announced by the State Government. He has referred to reply filed on behalf of the State and submits that the State Government never rejected the claim of the petitioner-company. It merely stated that there was a financial crunch at the relevant time and a seniority list had been maintained for releasing the subsidy after screening by the Committee constituted for this purpose. Learned State counsel has submitted that subsidy cannot be claimed as a matter of right. However, in view of the fact that claim of the petitioner was never rejected concerned authority shall look into the matter in accordance with law and the seniority maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law within a fixed time frame. In view of the fact that learned State counsel has submitted that claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and the seniority maintained by the State Government for release of subsidy, no further orders are required to be passed. The petition is, thus, disposed of. It is, however, directed that claim of the petitioner be considered within a period of six months. July 07, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE