IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the principle of promissory estoppel and held that the State cannot deny benefits promised under a policy based on subsequent policy changes, especially when units had valid approvals and met eligibility conditions under the previous policy.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the following reliefs:

(i) For quashing the order bearing Memo No. 350 dated 14.09.2022 issued by the Respondent Director, Food Processing, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar whereby the petitioner was denied grant of capital subsidy as promised under Integrated Development of Food Processing Sector Scheme, 2008 read with the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 without considering the fact that the petitioner commenced its commercial production on 23.05.2016 and the project of the petitioner was approved by S.I.P.B. and PAMC and therefore, the same ought to had been granted to the petitioner;

(ii) For direction upon the Respondents for grant of Capital Subsidy to the petitioner firm in terms of Clause 2Vii (d) read with Integrated Development of Food processing Sector Scheme, 2008 as promised and committed by the Respondent State of Bihar under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 read with Integrated Development of Food Sector Scheme, 2008;

(iii) For the declaration that the petitioner firm is entitled for grant of Capital subsidy as promised under Food Processing Policy, 2008 in terms of Clause 2 (vii)(d) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 as the said unit fulfills the eligibility conditions as required under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 and for a further direction to the Respondent State Government to disburse the amount of subsidy in favour of the petitioner at the earliest as promised by the Respondent;

(iv) For a declaration that in terms of the procedure laid down in Memo No. 387 dated 26.05.2015 cannot be made applicable on projects which has got S.I.P.B approval prior to the said Memo and moreover even if is held to be applicable, it was the duty and obligation of the Project Management Committee to get the same approved from the Minister, Department of Industry and the petitioner cannot be denied the benefits for fault/latches on part of the Respondents;

(v) For a direction upon the respondent to grant all other incentives to which the petitioner firm is entitled in terms of the promise and commitment made by the Respondent State of Bihar under Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 as the petitioner firm has established its unit in view of the benefits of in terms of incentives promised by the respondent State;

(vi) For a direction to the respondents to grant the incentives at the earliest to save the petitioner firm as it is suffering due to non-grant of amount of Capital Subsidy in terms of Clause 2(vii) (d) read with Integrated Development of Food Processing Sector Scheme, 2008 and other incentives promised under the Industrial Incentive Police, 2011.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner basing on the policy decision taken by the Government of Bihar, namely, “Bihar: A Land of Immense Opportunities For Food Processing Industry” (Annexure-1) and “Bihar Industrial Incentive Police-2011” (Annexure-1/A) has established a Unit. The necessary approval has been given by the State Investment Promotion Board (hereinafter referred to as “the S.I.P.B.”) on the application made by the petitioner in 2013, but the authority concerned without taking into consideration the above has passed the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the authority concerned without taking into consideration the above approvals given by the S.I.P.B. has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the proposals have not been approved by the concerned Chief Minister.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the new policy of the Government of Bihar the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister is necessary but in so far as the petitioner’s case is concerned, the same falls under the old policy of the year, 2011 for which the approval of Hon’ble the Chief Minister is not necessary and the approval of the S.I.P.B. is only sufficient and same has been give