IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5531 of 2010 M/S Kamper Concast Limited Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 02. 29.07.2011 Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, G.P. 14 for the State and Mr. Nirmal Kumar for respondent nos. 4 to 6. The writ petition has been filed seeking interest over the power subsidy amount remitted to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 for the period October 1998 to April 2002, inter alia, on grounds that the same has been remitted to the petitioner after an indefensible and inordinate delay of almost six years. The petitioner is an existing company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the production of iron ingots. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s unit is registered as a medium scale industry with the Department of Industries. Pursuant to an Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993, the petitioner applied for grant of power subsidy in terms of the provisions of Clause 6(ii) (b) of the Policy fulfilling the eligibility criteria. The claim of the petitioner for power subsidy was allowed by the respondents upto September, 1998 and disbursement made. The petitioner applied for power subsidy for the subsequent period from October, 1998 which was refused by the respondent authorities 2 of the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the BICICO), inter alia, on the plea of certain directives having been issued by the Commissioner, Industries Department contained in letter dated 11.7.2000. The grounds assigned for non release of power subsidy for the subsequent period was that since the Industrial Policy 1993, expired on 31.7.1998 and that of Industrial Policy 1998, also came to an end on 31.8.2000, hence no claim could be awarded for the period subsequent thereto. The petitioner aggrieved by the decision of the respondent Commissioner, Industries Department as contained in his letter dated 11.7.2000 and its communication by the Managing Director, BICICO as contained in letter dated 31.7.2001, filed a writ petition giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 15698 of 2001 which was allowed vide order passed on 21.4.2003 and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for power subsidy from October, 1998 onwards. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the positive direction of this Court nothing moved in the office of BICICO or in the Department of Industries and it is only after a lapse of six years thereafter when on 23.1.2009, an order under the signature of the Deputy Manager, Investment, BICICO granting power subsidy to the petitioner for period October, 1998 to April, 2002 @ 15 paise per unit amounting to Rs. 49,22,702/- was issued. Following the direction a cheque was 3 issued in favour of the petitioner on 2.3.2009 vide letter dated 3.3.2009 as contained in Annexure-11. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. arising from C.W.J.C. No. 5106 of 2004, submits that learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing a similar claim has awarded an interest @ 8 per cent to the petitioner from the date it was due. Learned counsel submits that in view of the order dated 8.2.2008 passed in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. as contained in Annexure-9 and considering the admitted position that the power subsidy claim of the petitioner was unnecessarily delayed and ultimately allowed only after a lapse of six years, the petitioner is also entitled to claim interest in terms of the decision rendered in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Learned counsel submits that in view of the pronouncement in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner again moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10401 of 2009 and which was disposed of on 6.10.2009 (Annexure-16) with a direction to the petitioner to represent before the Principal Secretary, Industries Department enclosing a copy of the order passed in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. and the Principal Secretary was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of said verdict. The order passed by the Principal Secretary has been impugned at 4 Annexure-20 of the writ petition, whereby the Principal Secretary vide order contained in Memo No. 647 dated 9.3.2010 has rejected the claim of the petitioner, inter alia, on grounds that this Court while considering the claim of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 15698 of 2001 and disposing of the same vide order passed on 21.4.2003, did not provide for any such relief and hence the petitioner was not entitled to any interest. It is in this background that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. It is the contention of the petitioner that undoubtedly the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15698 of 2001 did not direct payment of any interest but considering the delay that has been caused at the hands of the respondents in remitting the amount of power subsidy, it has entitled the petitioner to claim interest in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. and as also observed by this Court in the subsequent writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10401 of 2009 dated 6.10.2009. It is submitted that this Court considering the claim of the petitioner had directed the Principal Secretary of the Industries Department to examine the claim of the petitioner in the background of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. but the direction has not been carried out by the Principal Secretary, Industries Department. 5 Mr. Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the BICICO has simply shifted the burden on the Industries Department stating that as the funds was to be allotted by the Industries Department, hence the delay, if any, can only be attributed to the Industries Department and the BICICO cannot be saddled with the liability of interest. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent State in Industries Department and in which the stand taken by the Principal Secretary in the impugned order as contained in Annexure-20 has been reiterated. Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, learned Government counsel submits that in addition to the fact apparent that there was no clear direction by this Court while allowing the writ petition of the petitioner to grant interest, there is also no provision for interest in the Industrial Policy of 1993 and in absence whereof there was no occasion for the Industries Department to pay any interest on the power subsidy claim made by the petitioner. Mr. Ambastha also submits that there was no contractual or statutory obligation on the part of the State to pay any interest. Be that as it may, this argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not find mention in the impugned order whereunder the claim of the petitioner has simply been rejected on grounds that this Court while allowing the writ petition in C.W.J.C. No. 15698 of 2001 6 did not direct payment of any interest. It is indeed true that no such order was passed by this Court awarding interest but at that stage it could not be foreseen that it would take six years for the respondents to provide him with the relief granted in the year 2003. Another aspect of the matter is that this Court while passing the order dated 6.10.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 10401 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner for consideration of his claim for interest on the belated payment of power subsidy, had disposed of the writ petition requiring the Principal Secretary of the Industries Department to consider the claim of the petitioner in the back drop of the order passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Principal Secretary while passing the impugned order has simply ignored the said direction. It is not in dispute that despite the order dated 21.4.2003, the power subsidy has been provided to the petitioner after a lapse of almost six years on 3.3.2009. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay save and except that there is no contractual or statutory obligation on the part of the State to grant interest. An Industrial policy is a benevolent measure framed by the State Government for accelerating industrial progress by grant of incentives and conferment of benefits. The incentives provided and the benefits conferred have to reach the industrial unit concerned expeditiously and without delay 7 otherwise the whole object and purpose gets defeated. The respondent authorities in its Department of Industries certainly cannot have a laid back attitude in these matters and provide the benefits arising from an Industrial policy after six years at their own sweet will and without any suitable explanation being offered for the delay. That being the position and considering the view taken in the case of M/s Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd., the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest @ 8 per cent on the amount of the power subsidy granted to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 49,22,702/- as contained in Annexures-10, 10A and 11 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order. The order as contained in Annexure-20 is quashed and set aside. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)