CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.465 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21, 2011 Jai Bharat Gum & Chemicals Ltd., Distt. Bhiwani .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Goyal & Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-Jai Bharat Gum & Chemicals Ltd. is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of guar gum, for which it has set up different units within the State of Haryana. The petitioner had set up Unit-II as small scale industry for which it is registered with the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Bhiwani. Yet another unit is set up by the petitioner and is registered under Export Oriented Unit Scheme (for short, “EOU Scheme”) with Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Noida. The name of EOU was changed to M/s Chimique India from CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.465 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: the earlier name of 100% EOU division of Jai Bharat Gum & Chemicals Ltd. The petitioner prays for a direction to the State to issue freight subsidy as per the policy of the Government notified in notification dated 21.1.2006 (Annexure P-7). The prayer of the petitioner in this regard has been declined primarily on the ground that the petitioner is running two units and as such, would not be entitled to subsidy of more than `10 lacs, which has been allowed in response of one unit. The respondent-State has not only raised objection to the right of the petitioner to enforce this payment for seeking incentive through the writ petition but would point out to the policy decision taken in the meeting held on 20.6.2009. In this meeting, the claim of multiple units under the same management was discussed and it was as under:- “A unit may not be treated as separate entity and all the units under the same management/constitution should be clubbed together and the maximum ceiling of the eligible amount put together shall not exceed Rs.10.00 lacs.” Accordingly, the respondents would justify the action of the Government in rejecting the prayer. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that prior to 2009, the petitioner had been given this subsidy for both the units and would also refer to number of other cases where this subsidy was granted in respect of other Units also. In response, the State counsel would point out that after 2009, this has been a practice followed by the State while granting CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.465 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: freight subsidy incentive. Since prior to this decision, the State itself had been releasing the subsidy incentives to all the units that were EOU, the case for considering the claim of the petitioner is made out as incentive relates to a period prior to year 2009. The matter is left to be decided by the State in its discretion without going into the right of the Court to determine this issue in exercise of writ jurisdiction. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. January 21,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE