J.J. Rice and Oil Mills vs State of Kerala and Another

P.C. Balakrishna Menon, J.—The petitioner-appellant started his industrial unit on 1st August, 1978, outside the territorial limits of a mini industrial estate. He is not therefore entitled to the benefits of the tax concession allowed as per notification, exhibit P2, issued by the Government. Counsel submits that the benefits restricted to areas within a mini industrial estate is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution. The tax concession granted as per exhibit P2 is in pursuance of a Government policy to encourage small-scale industries in places earmarked for that purpose. The Supreme Court in the decision in State of M.P. and Others Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others, , after referring to the decisions in Money v. Doud (1957) 354 US 457, Metropolis Theatre Company v. State of Chicago (1912) 57 L Ed 730 and Perminal Basin Area Rate cases (1968) 20 L Ed 312, stated at page 280:

The court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.

We do not see anything patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide in the policy decision of the Government according tax concession for a limited period for small-scale industries started in a mini industrial estate earmarked for that purpose. The same principle applies in regard to the policy decision that the concession is available only to industries started after 1st April, 1979.

We do not see any merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.