Calcutta High Court Ballyfabs International Limited & Anr vs National Jute Board on 16 October, 2023 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya WPO/2222/2022 BALLYFABS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS NATIONAL JUTE BOARD WPO/2250/2022 KELVIN JUTE LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS NATIONAL JUTE BOARD WPO/2252/2022 BALLY JUTE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS NATIONAL JUTE BOARD WPO/2255/2022 AMBICA JUTE MILLS LIMITED & ANR. VERSUS NATIONAL JUTE BOARD For the petitioners : Mr. Suddha Satva Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Pradip Kumer Sarawgi, Adv. For the respondent no.2 : Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Joydip Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv., Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, Adv., Hearing concluded on : 25.09.2023 Judgment on : 16.10.2023 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J: 1. The petitioners have moved this Court against the refusal of the respondentAuthority to grant to the petitioners the benefit of two 2 Incentive Schemes for acquisition of plant and machinery floated by the respondent. 2. The first Scheme related to the period between October 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017 and the second between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2020. Under Scheme 1, the incentive to be granted was twenty per cent and under Scheme 2, thirty per cent of the costs for acquisition for MSME units. The petitioners are MSME units. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the benefits of the Schemes were refused on erroneous principles by the respondent. 4. At the outset, dealing with the objection taken by the respondent that the Union of India is a necessary party to the writ petitions, it is contended that the Schemes have been floated and issued by the National Jute Board that is the respondent. The applications for getting benefit of the same were submitted to the respondent. The examination, processing and disposal of the applications, under the Schemes, was also to be done by the respondent. 5. In the present case, the inspection was to be conducted by the respondent or its duly authorised representative or any other agency to be identified by the technical committee. The disbursal of funds under the Schemes to the eligible candidates is also by the respondent. 6. In fact, if the incentive is found to have been falsely obtained, the applicants are liable to refund the incentive availed of along with interest to the respondent itself, as per the clauses of the schemes. 7. Thus, the Union of India has no role to play. The respondent is a body 3 corporate created under the National Jute Board Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 2008 Act") and may sue or be sued in its own name under the said Act. 8. It is further contended that suits have been filed by the respondent and the respondent claims to have adjusted the amount payable under the Scheme to the petitioner with disbursal made to a different company. Thus, the Union of India is not a necessary party merely because the respondent pleads that the funding is done by it. 9. With regard to the question of limitation, also raised by the respondent, it is argued that such objection is restricted only to Scheme 1. The applications of the petitioners under the Scheme 2 have been made within the period stipulated therein. The second Scheme ranged from the period between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2020, whereas the second application of the petitioners, which is the relevant application, was made on February 22, 2018. Insofar as the first Scheme is concerned, learned counsel distinguishes between the dates of submission of application for getting benefit of the Scheme and the dates of submission of the actual claims under the Scheme. 10.