Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANIL KUMAR SINHA, J.
ACME Nalanda Solar Power Private Limited - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, Patna. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.63 of 2025 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19772 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2026
Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 – Clauses 6.2 and 8 – Incentives – Eligibility – Petitioners did not avail any incentive earlier – Restrictive provision of Clause 8(b) does not apply to petitioners and petitioners' case falls to be examined under general enabling part of Clause 8(b) – Clause 8 of 2016 does not create any bar upon existing industrial units from claiming incentives under present policy of 2016 – Amended provisions of 8(b) creates eligibility of existing industrial units for incentives under current policy – Industrial incentive policies amount to representations by State and once eligibility conditions are satisfied and entrepreneur has altered position by investment, benefits cannot be denied on hyper-technical or procedural ground – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation mandates that where public authority by its representation or consistent past practice creates expectation in favour of applicant such expectation cannot be defeated arbitrarily or without rational justification – Stage-I clearance and financial incentives approval granted to petitioners created vested and enforceable right to have their applications considered and processed in accordance with policy framework – Subsequent refusal of incentives by respondents in disregard to earlier statutory approvals and long standing administrative conduct is arbitrary, unreasonable and not sustainable – Petitioners are entitled to interest subvention, reimbursement of stamp duty and registration fee under BIIPP- 2016 – Respondents directed to ensure that petitioners are given incentives under 2016 policy within a maximum period of three months – Writ applications allowed. (Paras 60, 62, 65, 70, 71, 74, 79, 80 and 81)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidated writs seek biipp-2016 incentives declaration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. industrial policies promote growth, renewable subsidies. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. solar projects commissioned pre-biipp-2016 without incentives. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. biipp-2016 prioritizes renewables, transitional carry-forward. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. biip act enables structured incentive approvals. (Para 12) |
| 6. sipb grants stage-i, financial incentive clearances. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. amendment enables existing units' incentives eligibility. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. notice prompts pending subsidy claims submission. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 9. applications processed, rejected on timing grounds. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 10. approvals create vested rights, legitimate expectations. (Para 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 11. pre-policy commissioning bars 2016 incentives. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 12. court frames eligibility, rights, arbitrariness issues. (Para 51 , 52) |
| 13. policy defines existing units, quotes transitional clauses. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 14. amended 8(b) enables non-availing units' eligibility. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 15. approvals, estoppel enforce incentive entitlements. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 16. entitlement declared; rejections quashed; subsidies directed. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Since both the writ petitions involve identical questions of law and arise out of a common factual matrix, with the con- sent of the parties, both petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment/order.
2. The present writ applications have been filed seeking declaration that the petitioners were eligible to avail incentives under the Bihar Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2016 (in short ‘BIIPP-2016’) on the ground that the petitioners have not availed any incentive or benefit either under the Bihar In- dustrial Incentive Policy, 2011 (in short ‘BIIP-2011’) or under BIIPP-2016 including as permitted under Notification No. 4571 dated 14.10.2022.
3. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the rejection letters dated 03.11.2023, 30.12.2023, 21.10.2023 and 12.07.2024 issued by the State Investment Promotion Board (in short “SIPB”) and for a direction upon the respondents to process the petitioners’ applications for interest subvention sub- sidy and reimbursement of stamp duty and registration fee under BIIPP-2016.
CWJC No. 63 of 2025 - ACME Nalanda Solar Power Private Limited vs The State of Bihar & CWJC No. 19772 of 2024 - ACME Magadh Solar Power Private Limited vs The State of Bihar .
4. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are that the Government of Bihar initially notified the Industrial In- centive Policy, 2006 with the object of accelerating the indus- trial growth and reviving sick and closed industrial units by cre- ating a favourable investment climate. Subsequently, in view of changing global industrial dynamics, the State Government in- troduced the BIIP- 2011, which came into effect on 01.07.2011 and remained operative till 30.06.2016.
5. Clause 2(v)(d) read with Clause 9 of the BIIP – 2011 provided that new and / or existing industrial units generating energy through non-conventional sources were eligible to re-ceive subsidy up to 60% of the expenditure incurred on plant and machinery subject to the condition that such units has not availed benefits under any other Government policy.
6. ACME Cleantech Solutions Private Limited (ACSPL) the parent company of both petitioners participated in a compet- itive bidding process floated by Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited (BSPHCL) vide bid document dated 04.06.2014 for selection and establishment of solar power de- velopers of Solar Photovoltaic Projects of an aggregate capacity of 100 MW for supply of solar power to BSPHCL for a period of 25 years. ACSPL emerged as a successful bidder and was al- lotted solar p
Existing units commencing production before new industrial policy but not availing prior incentives eligible under amended transitional Clause 8(b); prior clearances create vested rights invoking pro....
The court affirmed that companies meeting criteria under the Bihar Industrial Incentive policies are entitled to interest subsidies from the commencement of commercial production, irrespective of pri....
The court established that the lack of explicit restrictions in the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 regarding the commencement of production prior to SIPB approval invalidated the denial of i....
The absence of a cut-off date in the Special Mega Package allows entitlement to incentives regardless of the commercial production start date relative to the previous policy's expiry.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
