IMPORTANT POINT
The court clarified that prior benefits under an earlier scheme do not bar claims for different incentives under a subsequent scheme, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic interpretation of the terms used in the schemes.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petitioner/respondent approached the Writ Court assailing the decision/order of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Howrah communicated through various letters of divulged dates with a further prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus upon the respondent authorities to extend Eligibility-cum-Registration Certificate as a small enterprise under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2013 (in short “Incentive Scheme of 2013”) and the benefits arising therefrom.

2. Undeniably, the writ petitioner/respondent is the manufacturer of the detergent soaps having several units in different parts of the country and, subsequently, set up a manufacturing unit within the State of West Bengal to avail the benefits, which the State intended to provide to the various manufacturers upon promulgating the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2010 (in short “Incentive Scheme of 2010”).

3. The unit was set up and the benefit under the said Scheme was availed of and to that regard there does not appear to be any dispute. However, subsequently, another Incentive Scheme of 2013 was promulgated under which several components of the incentives were included for which the application was made to claim the same as the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise, which was denied by the respondent authorities.

4. Initially, the defence was taken by the respondent authorities that the moment the small enterprise has various units Pan India; the unit set up within the State of West Bengal cannot be construed as a new industrial unit, which could not be accepted by the Single Bench. However, a little digression is made at the time of argument in the instant appeal. The reliance appears to have been placed upon the averments made in paragraph 52 of the writ petition wherein the writ petitioner/respondent has categorically averred that they had an existing unit at Howrah and availed the benefit under the Scheme of 2010 as a small scale enterprise. The aforesaid statement is construed by the appellants in juxtaposition with the definition of a new industrial unit defined in the Incentive Scheme of 2013, which means a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise in the manufacturing sector, which has started production on and after 1st April 2013 and filed EM (Part-III) and, therefore, if any further unit is set up in the State, it would be treated as new industrial unit. The said Clause 4(vii) defining new industrial unit is reproduced as under:

“4(vii) “New Industrial Unit” means a micro, small or medium enterprise in the manufacturing sector which has started production on or after the 1st April, 2013 and filled EM (Part-II). If an existing industrial unit sets up a branch as second/third unit etc, in different location in the State and manufactures new items, its second/third unit etc. will only be treated as a new Industrial unit provided EM (Part-II) is filed for the same.”

5. The interpretation sought to be made to the said definition clause does not convey the intention of the Government while framing the said Scheme. The language is explicit and clear to the effect that in the event the existing industrial unit, which is micro, small and medium enterprise, sets up the branch as second or third unit in different location in the State and manufactured new items, will be treated as a new industrial unit provided the EM (Part-II) is filed for the same. The expression “existing industrial unit” connotes the setting up of a unit in the State and the expression “second and third unit” with no ambiguity would indicate another industrial set up within the different parts of the State. It cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed that the unit, which is set up outside the State, shall be clubbed together and bring within the definition of the same.

6. Mr. Md. T. M. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants, also concedes to that effect and does not intend to take said plea, which was initially taken before the Single Benc