IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2477 of 2007 SURJIT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad For the State : Mr.Ramchandra Pd.Bharti, SC-4 Mr. Santosh Singh For the Board : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh 07 04.09.2008 The petitioner being allured by and persuaded by the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1995 of the State of Bihar decided to set up an industrial unit for manufacturing of Ethyle Acitate. He, accordingly, made an application for grant of provisional registration certificate as an SSI unit, which was granted on 13.07.1998. He, thereafter, made an application to the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority for allotment of land, which was done on 24.09.1998. He then constructed the building and took an electric connection from the respondent- Electricity Board on 11-04-2000, then, the building plan was approved by the Collector, Samastipur, as the petitioner was to store sprit, a State excisable material. Once, these formalities were completed the Industrial Area Development Authority made a recommendation to the Collector, Samastipur, who wrote to the Deputy Commissioner Excise, the claim for allocating sprit and grant of licence to start manufacturing. In those communications, it was clearly stated that the unit set up intends to start production in August 2000, itself. Ultimately, State took its own time and petitioner was able to start commercial production only on 27.11.2002, and as such, was granted permanent certificate of registration as an SSI unit. On 10.12.2002 showing the date of - 2 - production as 27.11.2002, petitioner claims that in view of the provisions of the Industrial Policy, 1995, pursuant whereto, he has set up unit. He was entitled to an incentive in the shape of exemption from payment of monthly minimum consumption charges in terms of Clause 9 (6) of the said policy. He made such a representation to the Electricity Board, but, the same is pending, but, he has been informed otherwise that as his unit did not commence production within the period specified in the Industrial Policy i.e. prior to 31st August, 2000, he was entitled to the incentive. Electricity Board has appeared and filed a counter affidavit and stated that the matter was pending before its Financial Controller, where the petitioner was asked to produce the certain papers but did not turn up any further. But, while doing so, a stand has been taken that in view of the Industrial Policy, as accepted by the Board, the petitioner having gone in production after August, 2000 i.e. with effect from 27.11.2002, he was not entitled to the benefits under the said Industrial Policy. State has also filed a counter affidavit and said that it has nothing to do with the matter, as it concerns to the Electricity Board. Without realizing the controversy, in which the question thus is, whether petitioner, who had taken steps to set up his industry being allured by the incentives offered under the Industry Policy 1995, can be denied the incentives, merely because, he had gone in production after August, 2000. Though as would be seen from the facts noted above, he had set up the unit including taken electric connection within the validity of the Industrial Policy. - 3 - Here, I may note that though initially the Industrial Policy Resolution was passed by the government being Industrial Policy, 1995. Electricity Board being a statutory authority did not accept the same, as such, State Government was required to and did issue directions in terms of Section 78 A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1948-49. The Board, then, considered the said direction and accepted to grant the incentive under the said policy for the policy period, as mentioned therein. The policy as originally resolved was valid up to August 2000, but thereafter, there was a delay on part of the government to come with a clear policy. Considering that the State Government took decision, which was approved by the State Cabinet. Wherein, it was decided to extend the benefits, till, the new policy was formulated, meaning thereby, as the policy was originally of 5 years expiring in August, 2000, it was extended till the next policy came in the said resolution of the Cabinet. It was clearly resolved that no fresh notification or circular was necessary to effectuate this extension. This apparently has not been taken note of or missed the consideration of the authorities of the Board. In my view, prima facie, Board by its resolution had agreed to implement the Industrial Policy, 1995 and once the policy was extended waiting a new policy by the State automatically the benefits would be applicable for an extended period. It is pointed at the Bar that even the subsequent Industrial Policy i.e. 2003-06, electrical incentives were maintained and is being honored by the Electricity Board. I see no reason why they would not be available in the interregnum period. The intention of the State was not to discontinue, but, to continue the policy - 4 - of incentive. Incentive as has been held by the Supreme Court is a beneficial legislation for industrialization and must be construed in favour of grant of incentive restrict the same. Thus, in my view, from the facts, it would be seen that the petitioner had completed all formalities and taken all steps to start production within the original period of Industrial Policy, 1995. But, because, he was unable to get the raw material allocation by the State within time, he could not go into the commercial production. He, however, went into commercial production. But, by this Industrial Policy itself had been extended by the State and thus, there is no reason why the petitioner should be deprived of the incentives. The matter being pending before the Financial Controller of the Electricity Board. I, therefore, deem it proper to direct him to consider the matter and decide the same in view of directions and observations within a period of one month from the date of production of copy of this order and communicate the order to the petitioner with order to grant relief, if any in accordance with law. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)