IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7239 of 2002 M/S DAYA ENGINEERING WORKS LTD., through its Director, Sanjay Sahay, Gaya Dobhi Road, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The General Manager, D.I.C., Gaya. 4. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, through its Chairman. 5. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 6. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 7. The financial Controller (Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road, Patna. 8. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Magadh Area, Board, Gaya. 9. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Gaya (East), Gaya. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 9/ 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as Board. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 16.11.2001 passed by Financial Controller (Revenue) Bihar State Electricity Board, respondent no.7 whereby he rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of benefit of exemption from payment of AMG for five years in case of existing units undertaking expansion / diversification under Industrial Policy, 1993. The petitioner is a registered small scale industry bearing permanent registration no. 03/05/02107/ P.M. / S.S.I. dated 08.02.1979. It is engaged in manufacturing of Railway Sleeper and other Concrete products. The State Government in order to boost industrial growth adopted Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993 which provided incentive for establishment of new industries as well as - 2 - expansion and diversification of existing industries. He submits that he was not given benefit of AMG under the Industrial Policy. He moved this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 8879 of 2001 and this Court by order dated 30.08.2001 observed that ‘if petitioner files a fresh representation before the Financial Controller, Revenue, Bihar State Electricity Board, he will dispose of the same in accordance with law. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner filed a representation before the Revenue Officer, who rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2001, as contained in Annexure-9. It would appear, that the Revenue Controller rejected the prayer for grant of relief under the Industrial Policy on the ground that he ought to have obtained a certificate from Director, Industries before taking expansion and diversification of his unit. It was observed in the aforesaid order that the certificate granted by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Gaya would not appear appropriate for granting exemption. Learned counsel submits that the ground on which his plea has been rejected is nonest ground in view of Clause ‘K’ of the Industrial Policy, 1993. He submits that the General Manager District Industries Centre, Gaya is competent to grant the certificate. He submits that he would also be entitled to benefit in view of Clause ‘Kh’ of the Industrial Policy. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the Board, submits that prior permission of the Director under Clause 24 of the - 3 - Industrial Policy was necessary. He submits that petitioner has failed to produce any document regarding the fact that permission was taken from Director, Industry prior to extension / diversification. He further submits that a unit can be considered for expansion if there is an additional increase in the original capacity by 50 per cent. The petitioner has not shown that his capacity has increased by more than 50 per cent. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-9, would show that the main ground for rejecting the application of the petitioner was non-production of certificate from Director, Industrial Centre, Gaya regarding expansion and the diversification. The impugned order nowhere states that there was any additional increase in the original registered capacity by 50 per cent. This Court, in view of the pleas of the rival parties, is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to show to respondent no.2 that in view of the factual aspects there was no need for obtaining the certificate of Director, Industry. In case, the petitioner raises his plea before respondent no.7, he would consider and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)