The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a claim for transport subsidy cannot be solely based on the ground of being time-barred, especially when the scheme itself does not prescribe any specific time frame for lodging a claim. The court emphasized that the time limit for lodging the claim is not inflexible and can be suitably relaxed depending on the merit of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Dr. A. Todi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent no. 1, Mr. A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Assam, representing the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. G. Das, learned Standing Counsel, NEDFI, appearing for the respondent no. 5.

2. The writ petitioner herein is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of cement manufacturing through its industrial unit set up at Jorhat in the district of Jorhat, Assam. Being aggrieved by the rejection of its claim for releasing transport subsidy by the “Pre Audit” Team of the Principal Accounts Office of the Chief Controller of Accounts attached to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) on the ground that the claim was ‘time-barred’, the instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer to set aside the rejection letter dated 12/07/2010 and also for issuance of a direction to sanction the transport subsidy amounting to Rs. 21,01,715/-for the period from 01/10/2002 to 31/12/2002 along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of submission of the claim till release of the full amount.

3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Government of India through the Ministry of Industries and Commerce had introduced “Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971” (herein after referred to as “the Scheme of 1971”) under which, transport subsidy would be disbursed to eligible industrial units on being sanctioned by the State Level Committee (SLC). As per the mechanism envisaged by the scheme, the application/claim for transport subsidy is required to be submitted, at the first instance, before the District Industries and Commerce Centre (DICC) in the district where the unit is operating. On receipt of such claim, the DICC would verify the claim. Thereafter, the claim/application is required to be forwarded to the SLC for examining the eligibility of the unit to receive “transport subsidy” under the scheme. Once the said process is completed, the matter is then forwarded to the DIPP for pre-audit verification.

4. On 03/06/2003, the petitioner had lodged its claim for transport subsidy pertaining to the period from 01/10/2002 to 31/12/2002, which claim was duly received by the DICC. After verification of the claim, the same was placed before the SLC which had also approved the claim of the petitioner on 12/01/2005. The application was then forwarded to the DIPP. However, as noted above, the “Pre Audit” team had rejected the claim of the petitioner holding the same to be “time-barred” and communicated the said decision through the impugned letter dated 12/07/2010, which is under challenge in the present proceeding.

5. By referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition, Dr. Todi has argued that although there is no time limit prescribed under the scheme for lodging the claim, yet, in view of the communication issued by the Ministry dated 04/05/1993 which, inter-alia, provides that the claim for disbursement of “transport subsidy” under the Scheme of 1971, would be reimbursed only if the claim is lodged within one year from the date of incurring the expenditure and considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner, lodged on 03/06/2003, was for the period pertaining from 01/10/2002 to 31/12/2002, the said claim ought not to have been held to be “time barred” as the same was evidently filed within the prescribed period of one year.

6. By referring to the notification dated 04/05/1993, Dr. Todi has further argued that as per the prescription of the DIPP, the units were required to submit quarterly claims and therefore, the claim for the last quarter of the year 2003, which would include the last day of the year i.e. 31/12/2002, would come within the fold of the claim dated 03/06/2003. Under the circumstances, submits Dr. Todi, viewed from any angle, the claim of the petitioner could not have been held to be time-