Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. By way of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the rejection of its claim of transport subsidy for the period from 01.07.2004 to 30.09.2005 as being time barred. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that it is a company incorporated under the Company's Act, 1956 having its registered office at Tinsukia in the State of Assam. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of consumable goods such as Atta, Maida, Suji, Bran etc. for which it procures raw material from outside the State.

2. The Government of India framed a scheme for grant of subsidy on the transport of raw materials and finished goods to and from certain selected areas with a view to promote industrial growth in such areas. The scheme is called the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971. It has since been extended from time to time and was in operation during the period in question. The state of Assam is included in the selected areas.

3. After establishment of its industry and commencement of production, the petitioner submitted an application on 14.11.2005 before the appropriate authority for grant of transport subsidy. According to the petitioner, the subsidy amounts being small at the initial stage, a composite claim was lodged for the periods from 01.07.2004 to 30.09.2005, the details of which are as under : -

PERIOD TOTAL AMOUNT ELIGIBLE

1. 1.7.04 to 30.9.04 Rs. 4,775.00

2. 1.10.04 to 31.12.04 Rs. 6,47,965.00

3. 1.1.05 to 31.3.05 Rs. 4,67,666.00

4. 1.4.05 to 30.6.05 Rs. 3,43,406.00

5. 1.7.05 to 30.9.05 Rs. 1,11,958.00

4. The petitioner was informed by the District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia by letter dated 01.11.2004 that its industrial unit had been registered under the Transport Subsidy Scheme. However, by letter dated 05.12.2005, the General Manager of the District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia informed the petitioner that the transport subsidy claim which was submitted and received on 14.11.2005, was for more than one period. The claim papers were returned to the petitioner for resubmission on quarterly basis. It appears that the claim for transport subsidy was thereafter submitted on quarterly basis for the periods indicated above in the office of the General Manager of the District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia on 14.12.2006, which was thereafter processed and forwarded to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Assam. However, the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Assam by letter dated 08.02.2007 informed the General Manager of the District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia that the Transport Subsidy claims submitted by the petitioner on 14.12.2006 were time barred as they were not filed within one year of incurring of the expenditure.

5. The petitioner submitted representation dated 27.03.2007 before the Director, Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Assam stating that the Transport Subsidy claims were submitted on composite basis on 14.11.2005 before the District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia. It was further stated that the requirement of submitting the claim on quarterly basis became known to the petitioner only after receipt of the letter dated 05.12.2005 from the General Manager of the District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia. It was further stated that the company's Chairman was out of station because of health grounds for which there was delay in re-submission of the claims on quarterly basis. The petitioner requested the Director to grant the claims to enable it to overcome the financial hardship. However, the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Government of Assam informed the petitioner by letter dated 06.02.2009 that its transport subsidy claims for the period from 01.07.2004 to 30.09.2005 were time barred. Accordingly, the claims were not accepted.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the grievance as in