IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that clear definitions and justifications are essential in administrative decisions regarding subsidies under incentive schemes.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition the writ petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for cancellation of the reasoned order dated 03.10.2016 as passed by the respondent No. 2/authority whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner’s application for incentive under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2007 for Micro And Small Scale Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Scheme’ in short) has been rejected by the respondent No. 2/authority.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is a micro and small scale enterprises under the said Scheme and in order to get the benefit of the said scheme it had applied for the entrepreneur memorandum which was issued by the respondent No. 2/authority on 17.02.2011. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that considering the eligibility criteria of the writ petitioner the respondent No. 2 authority had issued a certificate of eligibility dated 29.03.2013. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that thereafter on 30.03.2012 the writ petitioner made an application with respondent authorities for grant of subsidy, viz., State capital investment subsidy, interest subsidy and electric charges subsidy from the respondent No. 2/authority. The writ petitioner had also applied for bank loan for setting up its unit and the bank that is the United Bank of India sanctioned such loan and after availing such loan the manufacturing unit was established without even receiving a single incentive under the said Scheme.

3. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that for the reason best known to the respondents the writ petitioner was not given subsidy as prayed for though similar such subsidy was given to the other entrepreneurs which according to the writ petitioner is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that in an earlier round of litigation the aforementioned grievance of the writ petitioner was agitated wherein a co-ordinate Bench while disposing WP 16899(W) of 2016 by its order dated 05.09.2016 directed the respondent No. 2/authority to dispose of the pending application of grant of subsidy as filed by the writ petitioner within a specified time.

5. It is submitted that pursuant to such direction of the Hon’ble Court the respondent No. 2/authority most unilaterally passed an unreasoned order dated 03.10.2016 which requires interference by this Court.

6. In course of submission Mr. Sanyal, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the Scheme which is annexed with the writ petition at page No. 40 onwards. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Clause 3(ix) and Claue 3(x) of the said Scheme. Further attention of this Court is also drawn to Clause 3(xvi) of the said Scheme. It is submitted that on perusal of the aforesaid three Sub-clauses it would reveal that the said scheme defines the ‘new unit’, ‘existing industrial unit’ and ‘expanded portion’.

7. It is submitted that from the documents which have been placed before the respondent No. 2/authority there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondents to hold that the writ petitioner’s unit is an existing industrial unit and not a new unit. It is further submitted that it is not disputed that the writ petitioner has commenced its commercial production on and from 24.08.2010 at its unit but from page Nos. 224 and 225 of the writ petition it would reveal that such commercial production was started only after availing bank loan as sanctioned and disbursed by the United Bank of India. It is thus submitted that since the writ petitioner has fulfilled the eligibility criteria for obtaining the subsidy/incentive under Clause 6 of the said Scheme there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondent No. 2/authority to discard the prayer of the writ petitioner solely on the ground that the writ petitioner’s unit is an existing industrial unit though i