AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dipak Misra, C.J.
CM No. 11228/2011
Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 11227/2011
This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find sufficient ground exists for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal and accordingly the same stands condoned.
The application is disposed of.
LPA No. 523/2011
Heard Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sarat Chandra, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Calling in question the legal propriety of the order dated 21st February, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6759/2001, the present intra-Court appeal has been filed. In the writ petition, the Appellant had prayed for following reliefs:
a) issue an appropriate writ order or direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 directing them to immediately release payment of concession of Petitioners withheld by them which concession is otherwise payable to the Petitioner under the scheme.
b) Issue an appropriate writ/order or direction quashing the order dated 28.9.2001 issued by the Respondent No. 2.
c) Direct the Respondents to release ad hoc payment of concession to the Petitioners in future without insisting that the Petitioners purchase the raw materials from any specified source.
d) Direct the Respondents to pay to the Petitioners interest at the ruling bank rate for the delay in payment of concession from the date from which the payment was due till the date of its payment.
e) Award cost of these proceedings to the Petitioners.
f) Pass such other order or orders which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of this case as well as in the interest of justice.
The competent authority of the Government of India has passed the following order on the question of categorization of the Appellant:
"Category "''C''
The units which have bought rock phosphate mostly from private sources have been placed in this category. Some of units have gone to the extent of showing procurement of rock phosphate from non-existent sources. In respect of all such units, majority of the SSP production was based on purchase of rock phosphate which was found to be either false or could not be verified by the concerned investigating agency. The names of the units falling in this category are:
Girraj Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Gages Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
Neera Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Dynatech Petrochem Ltd.
Vijay Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
Paras Packing papers (Pvt.) Ltd.
Shubham Fertilizers.
Khushal Polymers India Ltd.
10.S.D. Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Shri Behariji Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
The State Government of U.P. is directed to file FIR and take appropriate legal/penal action against them. For these units, claims under Concession Scheme shall be processed only after the outcome of legal/penal proceedings to be initiated against these units. The State Government is also requested to investigate about their production and sales of SSP prior to the period of 98-99 because there is a strong possibility that these units might have claimed concession on SSP produced and sold by adopting similar fraudulent methods.
The Government of U.P. is requested to immediately take steps to implement the future course of action suggested in the foregoing paragraph of this letter.
It is worth noting, the Appellant was put in category "''C'' for the grant of subsidy.
The Appellant, who was Petitioner No. 8 before the learned single Judge, has prayed for grant of subsidy and the quashing of the order of classification as A, B and C. The learned single Judge has dealt with the facet of categorization in paragraphs 11 and 12. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same:
As regards units that are placed in Category "''C'' the rationale behind such classification is to be found in the impugned Notification dated 28th September 2001 as under:
"Category "''C''
The units which have brought rock phosphate mostly from private sources have been placed in this category. Some of units have gone to the extent of showing procurement of rock phosphate from non-existent sources. In respect of all such units, majority of the SSP production was based on purchase of rock phosphate which was found to be either false or could not be verified by the concerned investigating agency.
It would be a disputed question of fact whether in fact the Petitioner No. 8 has been rightly put under Category "''C''. There is already a criminal case pending and any observation made by this Court in this regard at this stage on that aspect would be inappropriate. Also, the basis for classifying the companies into Categories A, B and C have been cogently explained in the impugned notification. It is not possible to hold the said classification to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
In our considered opinion, there is no fault in the said analysis and hence, does not require any kind of interference. That apart, the question of grant of subsidy at this juncture does not arise as a criminal case has been filed pursuant to the directions given by the Union of India. Thus, the learned single Judge is justified in holding that it is open to the Petitioner No. 8 to seek appropriate remedies available to it in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid premise reasoning, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.