JUDGMENT :

OWP No. 755/2013

1. Petitioner No. 1-Unit is stated to have been established in the year 2006-2007 in the industrial estate at Samba.

2. The case set up in the petition is that the petitioners’-Unit was established on the assurances and incentives granted by the Govt. in regard to exemptions from payment of excise duty, sales tax, capital investment, income tax holiday for the first five years of operation of the unit, diesel generator set subsidy as also transportation subsidy etc.

3. It is further stated that for establishing the Unit, a huge amount of loan was raised from the State Bank of India amounting to Rs. 27 crores besides investments from other sources.

4. It was urged that initially the income of the Unit was good. However, the Unit became unviable on account of the following:—

(i) That in the year 2008, the entire state of J&K got disturbed on account of Shri Amarnath Ji’s agitation, which affected the manufacturing as also the transportation of the products from the Unit and finally, this led to stoppage of work from July, 2008 to August, 2008.

(ii) That the State Govt. backed out of its promise and failed to provide power connection as also various subsidies and exemptions which were otherwise promised to the petitioners’ Unit.

(iii) That the State Bank of India failed to provide additional funds to the petitioners’ Unit with a view to ensure its proper working, which had suffered on account of the blockade of the funds from various sources as also the stoppage of work in its Unit at Samba.

It is stated the bank was under an obligation to check the sickness of the unit and help it tide through the difficult period.

5. It is in the backdrop of the aforementioned facts that the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in the present petition:—

Mandamus, commanding the respondents to;

(a) ensure smooth and timely inflow of funds and release of subsidy and other tax benefits/exemptions as assured at the time of setting up of the unit;

(b) payment of adequate compensation to the petitioners for failure to ensure supply of power/electricity;

(c) re-scheduling of the loan to the petitioners’ unit by taking the issue with the concerned bank including the Reserve Bank of India.

6. During the pendency of the writ petition, CMP No. 1/2017 was filed, seeking amendment of the writ petition. In this amendment, the amounts claimed by the petitioners by way of compensation have been quantified. Not only this, a direction has been sought against the Union of India and its officers including one Smt. Ranjana Narang respondent No. 6 and Sh. B.P. Singh-respondent No. 7 to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs. 44,45,13,064.39/- along with interest to the petitioners. Incidentally, Smt. Ranajana Narang is an Income Tax Officer and Sh. B.P. Singh is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who appear to have dealt with the income tax returns filed by the petitioners at various stages.

7. The case set up against the income tax officers is that something, which was legitimately permissible under the Income Tax Act was denied by the said two officers in the course of assessment proceedings, which was rectified at subsequent stages in the mechanism provided under the Income Tax Act, which contributed towards making the petitioners’ Unit sick. Detailed claims have been preferred under various heads on account of subsidies and exemptions under the Industrial Policy on the ground of promissory estoppel.

8. Additionally, it was stated that one self-occupied dwelling house could not have been attached and was exempted in terms of Section 60(1) CCC read with Section 60(1) (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. In the response filed by the Union of India, it is stated that protection under Section 60(1) (CCC) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not available to a residential house, which is mortgaged. It is also stated that the procedure initiated by the Bank in terms of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as well as other statutory