IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
A.A. Sayed, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, JJ.
Ganpati Ropeways Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through The Principal Secretary (Tourism), Govt. Of H.P. Civil Secretariat, Shimla - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No.7475 Of 2010
Decided On : 03-11-2022
H.P. Grant of Incentives to the Tourism Industry Rules, 1984 - Rules 17, 22, 2.1 (t), (w)(8), 16 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Incentives - Payments Become Irregular - Petitioner claimed and was granted several incentives under Rules by respondent-Department, however, after sometime, grant of incentives/payments become irregular and later on stopped altogether – Para 4.
Finding of the Court: In facts and circumstances of case, after releasing some incentives, it is not open to State to deny release of remaining incentives only on ground the 1993 Rules were repealed by 2001 notification - Doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppels as explained in Brahamputra Metallics (supra) come into play in favour of petitioner - Even otherwise, release of incentives to petitioner under 1993 Rules is not prohibited under 2001 notification rather continuation of benefits under and in terms of 1993 Rules has been provided by repeal and saving clause of 2001 notification - State had itself been releasing benefits to petitioner even after 2001 notification - Respondents State declined to grant further incentives to petitioner under 1993 Rules, hence this petition filed in year 2010, seeking remaining incentives under 1993 Rules cannot be said to be suffering from any delay or latches – Court therefore find merit in writ petition - Petitioner is held entitled to benefits due to it in terms of 1993 Rules notified - Respondents are directed to examine case of petitioner for grant of benefits/ concessions/incentives/exemptions etc. due to it and which still remain to be paid under 1993 Rules within a period of four weeks from today - benefits/ concession/ incentives/ exemption etc. so worked out be released to petitioner within six weeks from today.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Simply put the petitioner’s grievance is that it had acted upon the promise extended by the respondents State Government under the Rules in force at the time and changed its position. The respondents though performed some of the obligations, but later on refused to honour their commitments under the Rules giving cause of action to the petitioner to file this petition, seeking implementation of the Rules vis-a-vis benefits to be given to the petitioner under them.
2. Facts:-
2(i) Tourism was declared an industry in Himachal Pradesh on 05.12.1984. Three sets of rules providing incentives to tourism industry in H.P. came into play viz:- (i) H.P. Grant of Incentives to the Tourism Industry Rules, 1984;(ii) H.P. Grant of Incentives to Paying Guest House Scheme, 1988 and (iii) H.P. Grant of Incentives to Dhaba Scheme, 1988. On 26.07.1993 in supersession of above Rules, the respondents notified new Rules for Grant of Incentives to Tourism Industry in H.P. (in short the 1993 Rules).
2(ii) The 1993 Rules came into force w.e.f. 01.08.1993. All new approved tourism units as defined under the rules, which had commenced operations within a period of ten years from the appointed day i.e. from 01.08.1993 up to 01.08.2003 were eligible for grant of incentives mentioned therein. The eligibility clause of the Rules runs as under: -
“1.2 Eligibility:
(a) All the approved tourism units as defined under these Rules shall be eligible for grant of incentives.
(d) These incentives will be available only to those New Tourism Units which commence operations within the period from the appointed day up to 01.03.2003 (i.e. for 10 years) provided that this condition will not be applicable for incentives under Rules 17 and 22.
2.1 Under these rules unless the context otherwise requires: -
2.1(w) “Tourism Unit” means commercial establishment in Himachal Pradesh providing facilities/services to the tourists and will include the following: 1 to 7. ……………..
(8) Ropeways.”
Rule 1.2(a) was not to be made applicable for incentives available under Rules 17 to 22. Rule 17 with the Heading “Publicity Assistance” aims to encourage participation of tourism units, tour operators & travel agents in publicity of State and for that purpose grants subsidies. Rule 18 provides incentives for tiny tourism units. Tiny tourism unit, as per Rule 2.1 (t) means a small scale tourism unit having fixed capital investment of Rs.10,00,000/- or less. Ropeways is included in the list of tourism units under definition clause 2.1(w)(8). Several incentives have been made available to the tourism units in form of subsidies, concessions and exemptions under the 1993 Rules.
2(iii) It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the incentives granted by the State under the 1993 Rules, it established a ropeway unit, in the name of ‘Ganpati Ropeways’ at Sh.Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur, H.P.. For the purpose of grant of incentives, this area fell under Category ‘A’ of the Rules. ‘Ropeways’ has been included in list of ‘Priority Tourism Projects’ in Annexure-II of the Rules and as such is entitled to incentives under Rule 16 of the Rules. Petitioner’s ropeways unit became operational in August, 1997.
2(iv) Petitioner claimed and was granted several incentives under the Rules by the respondent-Department, however, after sometime, the grant of incentives/payments become irregular and later on stopped altogether. It is in this context, the petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2010 for grant of following substantive reliefs: -
(b) Direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to release the arears of Interest Subsidy, Electricity Duty Paid Subsidy, Advertisement and publicity Expenses Subsidy, Reimbursement/ Subsidy qua the Diesel Generating Set Purchased and Installed by the Petitioner and the Subsidy/ Reimbu
Arbitrary State - State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner in its action. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of the Consti....
The State is bound by its promises under the Industrial Policy, and failure to issue enabling notifications for incentives constitutes arbitrary action, invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
The court established the binding nature of Operational Guidelines as supplements to the Policy, emphasizing that guidelines remain effective until modified by the competent authority.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot compel the government to act against statutory provisions governing entitlement to incentives.
Section 3(B)(b) of Act enables levy of electricity duty upon cancellation of exemption.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.