JUDGMENT :

1. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by means of this writ petition whereby a challenge has been made to the rejection of the claim for transport subsidy in terms of a scheme of the Government. The petitioners claim that all the conditions under the scheme were duly fulfilled and after detailed scrutiny, the entitlements of the petitioners were confirmed whereafter the impugned rejection has been made.

2. Before going to the issue to be decided, it would be convenient to narrate the basic facts of the case.

3. The petitioner no. 1 is a registered proprietorship firm and the petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of Petitioner no. 1. The petitioners carry on the business of manufacture of Fireclay, Bauxite powder, Soap stone powder, Bentonite powder and siliminite powder. As a part of their business, the petitioners have been acquiring and transporting raw materials from Meghalaya and have been using the same in the process of manufacturing of its products.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that under the Subsidy Scheme of the Central Government, the petitioner no. 1 is entitled to, against others, transport subsidy and for availing the same, the petitioners unit was registered in the District Industries & Commerce Centre, Kamrup (DICC) under the 50%, 75% and 90% Transport Subsidy Scheme.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that they have submitted 13 numbers of claims on account of transport subsidy, the total of which comes to Rs.1,77,38,625/-and the same was duly passed by the State Level Committee. However, the subsidy was not released. The petitioners have further stated that vide the impugned letter dated 04.03.2016 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, the Industries & Commerce Department of the State of Assam was directed to put and hold to the disbursement of such subsidy who, in turn had informed the North East Development Finance Corporation (NEDFi) to keep in abeyance the release.

6. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Commissioner of Taxes has no role under the Scheme and therefore, cannot withhold any transport subsidy due to the petitioners.

7. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Department that the rejection is based on relevant factors and cogent reasons. The specific case of the Tax Department is that there was no transportation at all, as claimed and therefore, the question of grant of subsidy will not arise. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioners were serious in nature. It is further submitted that certain other contemporaneous factors were taken into consideration before coming to the decision. It is also submitted that a vital communication dated 30.01.2019 by which the claim was rejected has not been put to challenge. It is further submitted that a report of a Two-Member Committee dated 30.01.2019 based upon which the impugned decision was taken has also not been challenged. It is finally submitted that the subject matter involves public money and therefore, this Court would be reluctant to pass any orders in favour of the petitioners.

8. I have heard Shri D.K. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.K. Agarwalla, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance (Taxation) Department, Shri A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Assam, Shri R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI and Shri G. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the NEDFi. The materials placed before this Court has been duly considered.

9. Shri Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that each and every step required to avail transport subsidy has been duly taken and therefore, the rejection of the same is wholly unsustainable in law. He submits that as per the procedure, the claim was to be submitted to the DICC which in turn would send to the Sales Tax Department wh