Agani Synthetics (P) Ltd. vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This writ petition seeks a direction to consider the application dated 4-6-1993 of the petitioner for the purpose of conferring the subsidy which was announced as a policy decision in G.O.Ms. No. 498, Industries & Commerce (I A) Department, dated 16-10-1989.

It is not disputed that the petitioner comes within the guidelines prescribed in the above CO., but there was a requirement to file an application within six months from the commencement of commercial production. In the instant case, the trial production commenced on 10-4-1991, while regular commercial production commenced in August, 1991. Even though the trial production commenced on 10-4-1991, the said trial product was sold as it conformed to the specifications. While the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that that is not the date to be reckoned for commercial production, the respondents reckoned the said date. Here there was a mistake in understanding so far as the petitioner is concerned. So that date was taken as 10-4-1991. The essential requirement for considering the plea for grant of subsidy is certification issued by the State Financial Corporation, that the machinery for which the loan was sanctioned has been duly purchased according to the specifications and has been installed. This certification was issued by the State Financial Corporation only on 10-1-1992, while the application for grant of subsidy was made on 7-4-1992. The explanation of the petitioner is that computing the period of six months from August, 1991 this application was filed on 7-4-1992. Since that was the bonafide impression of the petitioner, for the delay which occurred from 10-4-1991 to October, 1991 there is a plausible explanation. Even for the delay from 10-4-1991 and 7-4-1992, the explanation is plausible. The petitioner was under the bonafide impression that six months will be reckoned from August, 1991. The net result was there was delay of 11 months and 28 days in making the application for grant of subsidy. Originally, G.O.Ms. No. 498 did not prescribe any limitation for filing such an application, but by subsequent Memo No. 2125/IA/89-l, dated 15-9-1990, which was not issued in the name of the Governor, and which is an executive instruction, the time limit was prescribed as six months. Assailing this memo, this writ petition is filed not knowing that there was already G.O. Rt. No. 982, dated 30-9-1992, empowering the State Level Committee to condone the delay in appropriate cases. This G.O.Rt. is placed before me. The G.O.Rt. reads:

"After careful examination of the above proposals, the Government hereby delegate the following power to the State Level Committee:

''Condoning delays in filing applications for registration as well as claims''."

The same is issued in exercise of the executive power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India in the name of the Governor. No fetters are placed on the State Level Committee as to what is the maximum time limit for condonation or what should be the specific reasons. In fact, such a condition cannot be imposed, as it is not the time which is material, but it is the reason which is material for condonation of delay. The said power conferred is anlogous to Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. But in the counter it is stated that the benefit cannot be given to the petitioner as the Principal Secretary to Government, as the Chairman of the State Level Committee, as a policy decision decided to condone the delay only for nine months and a day beyond that will not be condoned. The learned Government Pleader, supports this 5 stating that when power is delegated to the State Level Committee, they are entitled to form a policy or guideline, prescribing some time limit for condoning the delay. I cannot accede to this contention. Power to condone the delay is given and that is akin to Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. While granting such a power, no fetters have been placed by the Government specifying any time or particular reasons. In each and every case the State Level Committee has to apply its mind and come to a conclusion as to whether the reasons for delay are plausible. It is the reason for the delay which is the sole consideration and not the length of delay. The delay may be one day, but there may not be sufficient reasons for condoning the delay; while the delay may be one year, and 15 there may be plausible reasons for condoning the delay. Otherwise there is no nexus for the delegation under the above G.O. Rt. No. 982.1 deprecate this usurpation of the power which only vests in the Legislature and the political executive and not in the State Level Committee for taking a policy decision not to condone the delay beyond nine months. Such a power is not conferred to 20 them and such a policy decision has got absolutely no sanction under law.

In the circumstances, as there are plausible reasons in the instant case, for the delay, I condone the delay and direct the State Level Committee to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy without reference to the delay, and the application shall be considered only on merits in the light of the benefits conferred under G.O.Ms. No. 498 dated 16-10-1989. The second respondent shall forward the application of the petitioner to the State Level Committee, and the said committee shall take a decision on the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.