The conditions stipulated in the special package approved for BCL under WBIS, 2000 had primacy over all other terms of the scheme, and the special package did not impose an overall financial cap on IPA based on Fixed Capital Investment.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The order dated 22.09.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 25596 of 2017 is under challenge in this intra court mandamus appeal at the instance of the State of West Bengal. By the said order the State of West Bengal was directed to disburse the amounts already sanctioned in favour of Birla Corporation Limited in terms of the letters issued by the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation (for short “WBIDC”) within the time limits specified in the said order. There was also a direction upon the WBIDC and the Ministry of Finance and Industries as well as the Secretary, Finance Department, State of West Bengal to dispose of the representation of Birla Corporation Ltd. dated 14.11.2016 within the time limit specified thereunder.

2. Pursuant to the said direction the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry Commerce and Enterprise passed an order on 24.08.2023 which is under challenge in WPA 26743 of 2023 at the instance of Birla Corporation Limited.

3. Birla Corporation Limited (for short BCL) had set up a cement manufacturing unit at Durgapur being persuaded with the special package offered under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 (for short “WBIS, 2000”) which provided “Industrial Promotion Assistance” (for short “IPA”) by way of a duty refund over a period of ten years without any financial cap whatsoever. BCL claims to be eligible to receive the incentive under the WBIS, 2000 as a Mega Project. The said unit of BCL was registered under the WBIS, 2000 and a registration certificate dated 29.04.2005 was issued. An eligibility certificate stating that the unit is entitled to receive incentive under the WBIS, 2000 as a mega project was issued by the Department of Commerce and Industry, Government of West Bengal in favour of BCL on August 30, 2005 with effect from 25.08.2005. The unit claims to have commenced its commercial production with effect from 24.12.2005. BCL claims to have received the last payment on 17.10.2014 and thereafter, no further payment was received by BCL. BCL claims that a principal sum of Rs. 5566.28 lakhs is receivable on account of IPA from WBIDC in terms of the WBIS, 2000 for the financial years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Over and above the said amount, a further sum of Rs. 8549.25 is receivable by BCL on account of IPA in terms of the WBIS, 2000 in the financial years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.

4. BCL filed a writ petition being WPA 25596 of 2017 praying for a direction upon the respondents to forthwith disburse the sum of Rs. 14115.53 lakhs in favour of BCL as outstanding incentive under the WBIS, 2000 along with further interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 01.04.2012 till payment thereof. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 22.09.2022 which has been assailed by the State of West Bengal in MAT 1965 of 2022. Pursuant to the order dated 22.09.2022 passed in WPA 25596 of 2017, the Principal Secretary passed the order dated 24.08.2023 rejecting the prayer of BCL contained in the representation. It was observed that BCL was not entitled for incentive in excess of the Fixed Capital Investment (FCI) limit at any point of time. It was further observed that BCL is no longer eligible for any further benefits under the Scheme and all amounts for which they were eligible have already been disbursed in their favour.

5. Challenging the said order BCL has filed WPA 26743 of 2023. The writ petition being WPA 26743 of 2023 which was directed to be tagged along with MAT 1965 of 2022 and the appeal and the writ petition were heard analogously by this Court and are decided by this common order.

6. Mr. Mitra learned Senior Counsel appearing for BCL submitted that the unit set up by BCL, Durgapur falls within the category “Mega Projects”. By referring to the WBIS, 2000, more particularly para 18 thereof, he contended that the State Government by a letter dated 19.02.2004 has approved a package as the unit propos