AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice R.B. Misra, J.—The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.01.2006, passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No.2 of 1999. The writ petitioner / (appellant herein) has preferred the aforesaid writ petition No.2 of 1999 before this Court for releasing the 3 + 1% subsidy on interest under Revised Rules regarding grant of incentives on Industrial Units in Himachal Pradesh, 1991 (in short called as Rules, 1991). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Private Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its Head Office at Shoghi, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P., and its Managing Director is a retired Major General of the Indian Army, has set up a unit for establishment of Electronic Items of keypads, the component used for manufacturing of Digital Telephone (modern technology) in Electronics and Computer at Shoghi in the year 1989 for which registration certificate was issued to him in the year 1991. The respondent in order to provide incentives to the industrial units in Himachal Pradesh as per the Revised Rules, framed the rules for new and already established industries in Himachal Pradesh in the year 1984. Under Rule 9 of Rules 1984, interest subsidy at 3% was granted only to Tiny Units and the small scale industries in Himachal Pradesh were not entitled to such benefits. It appears that in order to enlarge the scope of industrial development benefits in Himachal Pradesh, the State Government again revised the said rules in the year 1991, wherein under Rule 16 the State provided 3% interest subsidy to the small scale industrial units for the first time. Undisputedly, the writ petitioner / (appellant herein) being a small scale industry was entitled to additional 1% subsidy on interest from the Government of Himachal Pradesh under Rule 18 being priority industry. For denial of 3% interest subsidy, the appellant had preferred CWP No.2 of 1999, which was partly allowed on 6.1.2006 by awarding 1% subsidy on interest under Rule 18 of the 1991 Rules only and thereby rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for 3% interest subsidy claimed by him under Rule 16.
For convenience necessary provisions of Revised Rules regarding grant of incentives to Industrial Units in Himachal Pradesh, 1991 are extracted as below:-
1.2 Eligibility:-
(a) New Industrial Units and Small Scale Service Establishments as defined in these rules shall be eligible for grant of incentives as provided for respectively under these rules. Existing units will be eligible for grant of all new incentives under these rules subject to the proviso that they shall continue to be governed by ''Revised Rules regarding grant of incentives to new and already established units in Himachal Pradesh, 1984'' in respect of all incentives covered under those rules.
(b) As the incentives under these rules are provided under the discretionary powers of the State Government, hence they do not create any claim against Himachal Pradesh Government enforceable in any Court of Law.
DEFINITIONS:-
2.1 Under these rules unless the context otherwise requires:-
(d) Existing units" means those industrial units which have been set up and commenced production before the appointed day.
xxxx
(q) New Industrial Unit" means an Industrial unit located within the State of Himachal Pradesh which commences production on or after the appointed day and will include any existing unit which is eligible to get fresh registration as per the guidelines provided by Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, Govt. of India, from time to time, but will not include any industrial unit, small, medium or large, which is formed as a result of re-establishment, mere charge of ownership, change in the constitution, reconstruction or revival of an existing unit.
xxxx
(s) Tiny, Small, Ancillary, Medium or Large Industrial unit shall have the same meaning as defined by the Government of India from time to time.
INCENTIVES TO SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF ENTREPRENEURS FOR SETTING UP TINY AND S.S.I. UNITS:
16.1 Special categories viz. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women, ex-servicemen, physically handicapped, Antyodya and I.R.D.P. families entrepreneurs setting up new units will be entitled to the following additional incentives / facilities which will be over and above the incentives/facilities admissible elsewhere in these rules, unless so specified.
(a) Subsidy for Capital investment:10% special
investment subsidy on fixed assets shall be allowed to such entrepreneurs out of state funds, over and above the Central/State Investment subsidy, as may be admissible to general category entrepreneurs, for establishment of tiny units.
(b) Margin money will be provided @ 1% on matching basis upto a maximum extent of 10% of project cost or Rs.50,000/- whichever is less, to such entrepreneurs.
(c) The rate of interest on term loans will be charged @ 3% below the term lending rate for private sector. The difference between the actual rate of interest chargeable by the term lending institutions (after the availing of refinance from NABARD/SIDBI/IDBI or any other Financial Institution) will be reimbursed by the State Govt. directly to the Financial Institutions for such entrepreneurs.
On going through the above provisions of Rules 1991, it appears that the petitioner being owner of the small scale industry was not entitled to any incentives under 1984 Rules, whereas, in revised Rules 1991, the petitioner being an "Existing Unit" was entitled to be benefited under 1.2 (a) for grant of all new incentives under these rules subject to the proviso that they shall continue to be governed by ''Revised Rules regarding grant of incentives to new and already established units in Himachal Pradesh, 1984''. Undisputedly the appellant had already started the commercial production before the appointed day and by virtue of that the appellant had been granted registration certificate (Annexure P-1), by virtue of that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of ''New Industrial Unit'' (by virtue of Definition of 2.1 (q), whereby "New Industrial Unit" was to be an existing unit which was eligible to get fresh registration as per the guidelines provided by Development Commissioner, Small Scale Industries, Government of India.) By virtue of Rule 16.1, the appellant could be categorized in a special category as the Managing Director was an Ex-Serviceman and it would also be treated as new industrial unit which would be entitled to the additional incentives/facilities over and above the incentives/facilities admissible elsewhere under these rules so specified. In our considered view, the units falling under special category or small scale industry being ''New Industrial Unit'' were not debarred under Rules 1991 for not getting additional incentives/facilities, since the petitioner had started production before the appointed day and being an existing ''New Industrial Unit'', within the definition of 1.2 (a) and 2.1(d) read with 2.1(q), as such, was also entitled to the benefit under Rule 16.1 (c) i.e. rate of interest on term loans chargeable @ 3%. From this point of view, the impugned judgment is not legally correct, as such, in addition to the benefit also granted vide impugned judgment dated 06.01.2006, the petitioner shall also be entitled to 3% interest subsidy under Rule 16.1 (c). In view of the above observations, the impugned order dated 6.1.2006 is modified to this extent and the present LPA is allowed.