When a period of time is prescribed "from" a specific date, the starting date is excluded from the computation. Consequently, an act performed on the anniversary of that starting date falls within the one-year limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. D. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe petitioner. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned Dy.SGI assisted by Ms. N. Devi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action on the part of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s claim under the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 to which the petitioner claims entitlement.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Government of India had notified the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 dated 01.04.2007 (for short, “the Industrial Policy”). Pursuant to the said Industrial Policy, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India (Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion), issued a scheme for granting incentives towards capital investment known as the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (for short, “the CCIS Scheme”) dated 27.07.2007. The said scheme was given effect from 01.04.2007.

4. The petitioner being encouraged by the Industrial Policy and the incentives announced therein took steps for expansion of its industrial unit and went into commercial production of the expanded unit on 29.03.2017.

5. It is the case of the petitioner herein that to avail the benefits under the CCIS Scheme, various eligibility conditions were set out. In addition to that, for operationalising the CCIS Scheme, Operational Guidelines were issued on 07.05.2013. The said Operational Guidelines stipulated the conditions as well as the procedure for availing the benefits under the Scheme. For the purpose of the instant dispute, Clause (vii) of the Operational Guidelines is relevant, and the same is reproduced hereinunder:

“(vii) The claims for subsidy under CCIS Scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 have to be submitted to the concerned DIC in the prescribed Application Forms within one year from the date of commencement of commercial production. Cases of delayed registration will be dealt as per the clarification provided vide DIPP letter No.10(5)/2008-DBA-II/NER dated 25th August, 2008 and letter No. 10/6/2008-DBA II/NER dated 15th March, 2012. In case of units which do not get themselves registered by 27.07.2007/21.09.2007 due to delayed notifications of the scheme and have subsequently got themselves registered latest by 31.12.2008, claims submitted by these units within one year of registration could be deemed admissible, if State Level Committee (SLC) deems the case fit for condoning the delay. Any other case for subsequent waiver will be dealt on case specific basis by DIPP after the SLC recommends such relaxation, subject to strict proof of commencement of operation/commercial production. In such cases, final decision rests with DIPP.”

6. From a perusal of the above-quoted Clause, it would be apparent that the claim for subsidy under the CCIS Scheme had to be submitted to the concerned DIC in the prescribed Application Forms “within one year from the date of commencement of commercial production”.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner went into commercial production on 29.03.2017. The petitioner filed the application seeking benefits under the CCIS Scheme on 29.03.2018. The concerned Respondent Authorities in the Minutes of the Meetings held on 06.04.2019, 10.10.2019 and 17.08.2022 rejected the pe