1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.997 OF 1998 Stovec Industries Ltd & anr .. Petitioners -versus The State Industrial & Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr Gautam Patel,i/b Tayabji Dayabhai, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 8th September, 2009. P.C. 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges two notices dated 17th April, 1998 and 8th July, 1998. It is alleged in the first notice that the petitioner has committed breach of the conditions contained in the eligibility certificate and the capital incentive availed by the petitioner is recalled. By the second notice dated 8th July, 1998, for the same reason the amount of incentive availed by way of octroi by the petitioner is recalled. The capital incentive and Octroi incentive is being recalled as 2 per notice dated l7th April, l998 and 8th July, 1998 for two reasons, one is that the six monthly follow up report which was required to be submitted as per eligibility certificate has not been submitted from l.7.1993 and another is that certain assets were sold out without getting prior approval of the SICOM and therefore, penalty of Rs.36,000/- was levied by letter dated 6.10.1993. 2. So far as first reason given in the notice namely non submission of six monthly follow up report from 1.7.1993 is concerned only explanation to be found in the petition is that because there was an application made before B.I.F.R, in 1996 by the petitioner for permission to close down the unit or sell the unit in which the representative of SICOM participated the information was available to SICOM. There is no other explanation given. 3. In our opinion, this explanation can not be accepted because this does not explain why the petitioner failed to submit the periodical returns which admittedly were required to be submitted during the years l993, l994, l995 and l996. Therefore, we do not find any explanation given by the petitioner for committing default in submitting return. In our 3 opinion no exception can be taken to the recall of capital incentive. So far as the other ground given in the second notice is concerned, it is admitted by the petitioner that certain machinery was sold by the petitioner without obtaining prior approval of the SICOM. The explanation given is that the machinery was sold as scrap for Rs,l9,023/- and that unit was replaced by machinery worth Rs.7.40 lacs and therefore, according to the petitioner the lapse was merely procedural. Thus, it is an admitted position that the petitioner sold machinery before l993 without obtaining prior approval of the SICOM. Though the petitioner claims that the machinery was sold as scrap for Rs.l9,000/- and it was replaced by new machinery worth Rs.7.40 lacs, we do not find any material placed before us on record to support that claim. In our opinion, therefore, as it is admitted position that the petitioner sold machinery without obtaining prior approval, no fault can be found with the second ground. Thus, we do find any substance in the petition, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 4. However, considering the fact that the petition is pending for final hearing for so many years and there was 4 interim order operating, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply to SICOM for waiver or reduction of the rate of interest for the period during which the petition was pending. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)