IMPORTANT POINT
Educational institutions do not qualify as industrial units under the NEIDS 2017, as the scheme is intended for industrial development.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for registration under the North East Industrial Development Scheme (NEIDS), 2017 vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2023 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. The petitioner herein is a School and unit of a Trust.

2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner School was opened by keeping in view a notification by the Central Government announcing a Scheme named NEIDS 2017. As per the petitioner, it fulfills all the terms and condition for getting the benefit under the said Scheme. It is averred that the unit was physically verified by the General Manager, D.I. & C.C. Dibrugarh which had recommended for its registration. However, the Committee in its 57th meeting held on 31.09.2019 had rejected the application for registration by holding that the School is an entity which is not permissible for commercial purpose. It has also been held that the School cannot be an Industrial Unit. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted representation for a fresh consideration which was also rejected in the second SLC meeting. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing writ petition WP(C)/224/2021 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2023 directing a reconsideration of the case of the petitioner. However, vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2023, the prayer of the petitioner for registration has been rejected. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

3. I have heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri AK Dutta, learned CGC and Shri A. Kalita, learned Standing Counsel, Industries & Commerce Department.

4. Ms. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, at the outset referred to the relief sought for in this petition which is mainly to set aside the rejection order dated 25.09.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner is not in the Negative List of the Scheme and there was a clear direction of this Court on 17.05.2023 while disposing of the earlier WP(C)/224/2021 to consider the case of the petitioner. However, without taking into consideration the relevant factors, the rejection order has been passed. By referring to a communication dated 10.09.2020 issued by the Commissioner, Industries & Commerce Department, Assam to the Ministry of Industries & Commerce, Government of India, the learned counsel has contended that the decision of the Empowered Committee in its meeting dated 30.01.2019 observing that the School is an entity which is not permissible for commercial purposes and cannot be an Industrial Unit is erroneous. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 01.04.2024, more particularly, the averments made in paragraph 6 thereof, the learned counsel has submitted that there is an admission that there is no straitjacket formula to decide on the eligibility and various factors are required to be taken into consideration.

5. The learned counsel has also relied upon the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply Vs. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 548 and has submitted that School would be included in the definition of “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act in the year 2018 and that under paragraph 4.1 of the Scheme of 2017 service sector has been included. Reference has also been made to the definitions under the notification dated 12.04.2018 and under Clause 5 (d) and (f) “Industrial Unit” and “Eligible Service Sector Unit” have been defined and the petitioner unit falls under the same. She has reiterated that there is a Negative List and the services of the nature rendered by the petitioner are not there in such list.

7. By referring to the Cabinet approval dated 28.02.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Education Services are clearly covered. It is also s