AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner is the managing partner of a registered SSI unit engaged in the business of manufacturing coir fiber from coconut husk. According to the petitioner, the petitioner started the unit on 05.11.04. The 1st respondent, State of Kerala, issued Ext.P2 order dated 3.7.2004, by which subsidy not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs was offered to new entrepreneurs who starts such industries as investment subsidy. That upper limit of subsidy was enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs by Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner started the unit after Ext.P2 order was issued, the petitioner is entitled to the subsidy declared by Exts.P2 and P3. Petitioner therefore applied for the subsidy by filing Ext.P1 application. However, that application was rejected by Ext.P6 order on the ground that the majority of fixed capital investments were made before issue of Ext.P2 order on 03.07.04. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P6.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner had purchased the fixed assets after Ext.P2 Government Order was issued. He would allege that it is only because th petitioner refused to grease the palm of the inspecting official, he had given an adverse report which resulted in Ext.P6 order of rejection.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent refuting the contentions of the petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated thus:
On receipt of the application of special investments and subsidy as per the note order dated 02.09.06 in the file No. CP3/9982/06, the Additional Director of Coir Development Department has been authorised to verify and report of the claim. Therefore, the verification officer conducted inspection to ascertain the genuineness of application. The visit of Verification Officer is not a personal visit as contended by the petitioner. The verification officer has reported hat the majority of fixed capital investment are made by the petitioner before announcing the G.O(Rt) No. 642/04/id dated 03.07.04(Ext.P2). Therefore the above unit is not eligible for special investment subsidy. The verification officer has also recommended rejecting the application. Hence on the basis of recommendation of Verification Officer the application of the petitioners unit was rejected and returned vide letter No. CP3/9982/06 LDIS dated 31.10.06(Ext.P6). In fact the visit of sanctioning authority in the unit was for physical verification of the fixed investment and to ascertain the eligibility for special investment subsidy. The Ext.P6 and P7 were issued as a part of official procedure. Since the verification conducted revealed that, major fixed investment of the unit were made before 03.07.04, i.e., date of announcement of G.O., the petitioner is not entitled to get the subsidy. Hence the denial of subsidy to the petitioner is legally valid.
On the basis of that counter affidavit the learned Government Pleader would argue that the petitioner is not eligible for the subsidy.
I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Since the eligibility for the subsidy is detailed in Ext.P2, the petitioner''s eligibility has to be decided based on the same. The eligibility conditions in Ext.P2 are as follows:
For eligibility under the scheme, the unit shall be an independent entity and will have to be registered with the Directorate of Coir Development.
All brad new identifiable machinery shall be eligible for the Special Investment Subsidy. The claims in this regard should be supported by the original invoice/invoices and a certificate issued by a competent Mechanical Engineer in Govt. service with regard to the cost of machinery.
Therefore for becoming eligible for the subsidy, the petitioner has to prove that brand new identifiable machinery were purchased by the petitioner after the date of Ext.P2, namely, 03.07.04. In Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner the details of the machinery purchased by him have been stated thus:
Cost of Machinery:
Sl Name of Machinery Inv.No.& Name and Value Date Address including all taxes
Turbo Machinery 1/15.03.04 Cones India Engg.Works, Pollachi 83200.00
Turbo Cleaner 1/15.03.04 " 98800.00
Balling Press 1/15.03.04 " 93600.00
Screener 5x7x8 1/15.03.04 " 46800.00
Conveyor Frame Unit 1/15.03.04 " 306800.00
Conveyor Belt 1/15.03.04 " 145600.00
1 HP Electric Motors 42/08.07.04 Deejee Engg.Corpn. Trichur 18282.00
Electrical items 721/05.07.04 Saraswathy Agencies,Pollachi 117771.00
Electrification Sona Electricals, Kannara 61420.00
Total 972273.00
Of course items 7 & 8 were purchased after the issue of Ext.P2 order. But, clearly items 1 to 6 machinery were purchased prior to that date. That being so, I do not find anything wrong in Ext.P6 order which states that majority of the fixed capital investment were before the date of Ext.P2. That being so, the petitioner has not proved that he has become eligible for the subsidy as per the conditions in Ext.P2 order. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.