IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4948 of 2011(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ CYBELE HERBAL LABORATORIES (P) LTD., KOOVAPPADY ROAD, , KANJAR PO, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR P.N. BALARAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN, SRI.S.SUJITH, SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN, SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(INDUSTRIES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,IDUKKI 685 602. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4948 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an 'SSI unit', stated as entitled to get exemption from Sales Tax and eligible to get State Investment Subsidy. Case of the petitioner is that, by virtue of Ext.P1, the department found that the petitioner is entitled to get subsidy of Rs.66,52,310/-; which however was limited to to Rs.25,00,000/-. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.18424/2006, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, whereby appropriate directions were given to the concerned respondents. Pursuant to this, Ext.P4 order was passed, granting the eligible benefits to the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, though the subsidy was released to the petitioner, the production came to a stand still because of some defects in the machinery. It is stated that the petitioner was taking earnest efforts to get the spare parts, or to have new machinery, imported from Germany. In the meanwhile, the second respondent intervened by passing W.P.(C) No. 4948/2011 - 2 - Ext.P5 order, directing the petitioner to refund the subsidy amount with interest at the rate of 14 %, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to to go into the merits of the case, especially with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner to retain the subsidy or otherwise, but for directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 preferred by the petitioner for redressal of the grievance. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The coercive steps, if any, pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. Writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vdv