Strict interpretation of subsidy schemes and the burden of proving eligibility lies with the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 5; Mr. S. Barua, learned

Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board and Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

2. The petitioner’s grievance is that the petitioner has been denied the Capital Investment Subsidy under the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “CCISS, 2007”). The brief facts of the case is that the CCISS, 2007 was published, vide Notification dated 27.07.2007 and the same came into effect from 01.04.2007 and was to remain in force up to 31.03.2007. In terms of the CCISS, 2007, all new industrial units as well as existing units which go in for substantial expansion and are located anywhere in the North Eastern Region, were eligible for Capital Investment Subsidy under the Scheme. The Scheme was made applicable to the following service sector activities/industries :

“I. Service Sector :

(i) Hotels (now below Two Star category), adventure and leisure sports including ropeway;

(ii) Medical and health services in the nature of nursing homes with a minimum capacity of 25 beds and old-age homes;

(iii) Vocational training institutes such as institutes for hotel management, catering and food crafts, entrepreneurship development, nursing and para-medical, civil aviation related training, fashion, dsign and industrial training.

II. Bio-technology industry

III. Power Generating Industries :

Power Generating plants upto 10 MW based on both conventional and non-confenational sources.”

The validity period for grant of the Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme was till 31.03.2017. Further, in terms of the Notification dated 12.09.2007, amendments were made to the CCISS 2007, in place of existing sub-paras (b) and (c) under para 4 thereof titled "Definitions" the following shall be substituted:

“4. Definitions:

(b) "New Industrial Unit" means an industrial unit which commences commercial production on or after the first day of April, 2007 but not later than 31st day of March, 2017.

(c) "Existing industrial unit' means an industrial unit which commenced commercial production before 1-4-2007”.

3. The case of the petitioner “M/s Quality Pharma Products Pvt. Ltd.(Unit-II)” is to the effect that it is involved in research, manufacturing and marketing of branded pharmaceuticals formulations. As it came to know of the CCISS, 2007 under the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “NEIIPP, 2007”), the petitioner decided to expand it’s existing pharmaceutical manufacturing unit. The petitioner after completing expansion of the existing manufacturing unit wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-I, Dibrugarh Division on 28.03.2017 stating that they had started production of medicines w.e.f. 28.03.2017.

4. The Regional Executive Engineer, Dibrugarh Pollution Control Board thereafter wrote a letter dated 23.03.2017 to the petitioner, in reference to the petitioner’s letter dated 08.03.2017, stating that the petitioner’s application for “Consent to Establish” the Unit M/s Quality Pharma Products Pvt. Ltd.(Unit-II) had been received on 08.03.2017 and the same was under process. The “Consent to Establish” was finally given by the Pollution Control Board on 17.08.2017. The “Consent to Operate” permission was given to the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board on 13.12.2018 and the same was valid upto 31.03.2019.

5. The petitioner thereafter made an application for grant of Capital Investment Subsidy under the CCISS, 2007 and under the NEIIPP, 2007 on 02.01.2018. The petitioner industry was consequently verified on 11.01.2018 and a recommendation for grant of Capital Investment Subsidy was made. However, vide the impugned 57th State Level Committee meeting held on 06.03.2019, the State respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of Capital Investment Subsidy on the ground that “Consent