The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to condone the delay in submission of the application for interest subsidy based on the sufficiency of cause shown by the petitioner.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

W.P.(C) No.2129 of 2010 was filed by M/s Satyam Ferro-Tech (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) for payment of interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the accumulated amount of interest subsidy from due date.

2. By filing an interlocutory application for amendment vide I.A No.4090 of 2010 further prayer touching upon validity of Rule 4.3(Gha) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 was sought to be challenged, the averments in respect of which are contained in paragraph nos.36A to 36E of the said application.

3. Rule 4.3(Gha) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 is extracted below :

^^4-3 lwn vuqnku %

?k & le; lhek

1- bPNqd bdkbZ;ksa dks lHkh n`f"Vdks.k ls iw.kZ okafNr dkxtkrks ds lkFk vius nkos fdlh foRrh; lky dh lekfIr ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj lefiZr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA

2- 6 ¼N%½ ekg ls vf/kd dh vof/k dks {kkUr djus dh 'kfDr m|ksx funs'kd esa fufgr gksxhA blls vf/kd ds le; lhek dks {kkUr djus dh 'kfDr lfpo m|ksx esa fufgr gksxhA**

English Translation:

“4.3 Interest Subsidy:

Gha - Time limit

1. The interested units must submit their claim along with entire required documents, complete in all respects, within six months of the financial year.

2. The power to relax the time period beyond more than six (6) months shall be vested in the Director of Industries. The power to relax the time limit beyond more than that shall be vested in the Secretary-Industries.”

4. By a common order dated 19th January 2011 W.P.(C) No.2129 of 2010 with W.P.(C) No.2141 of 2010 were disposed of in the following terms :

“7. However, there is no dispute that there is provision to condone the delay. But, by the impugned orders the delay was not condoned saying that no cause was shown, whereas, it appears from the materials on record that there were good grounds for condoning the delay, but the same were not considered by the Director of Industries. In my opinion, if the incentives, promised are denied in such manner, it will send wrong signals. The judgment relied by the State counsel are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, rather the aforesaid paragraph 16 of the judgment of “Tata Cummins Ltd.” (supra) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 57, relied on behalf of the petitioner, is relevant. As this Court is satisfied that there are good grounds for condoning the delay of 70 days and 30 days in making some claims, instead of remanding the matters, such delay are condoned.

8. However, I am not inclined to condone the delay for the year 2003-04 in WPC No.2141/2010 as the explanation of the delay of 16 months is not satisfactory.

9. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to process the claims for interest subsidy of the petitioners (except for the year 2003-04 in WPC No.2141 of 2010) and disburse the legally payable claims as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With these observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.”

5. The proceedings in C.O. No.5 of 2011 would disclose that by an order dated 12th April 2018, L.P.A. No.211 of 2012 hearing in which by that time was complete was detagged and it was ordered that other matters shall be listed after the judgment in L.P.A. No.211 of 2012. The judgment in L.P.A. No.211 of 2012 was rendered by the Division Bench on 13th June 2018 upholding vires of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, particularly Rule 4.3(Gha).

6. The State of Jharkhand has filed L.P.A. No.65 of 2011 against the common order passed in W.P.(C) No.2129 of 2010 by which the learned writ Court held that there are good grounds for condoning the delay in submission of the application for interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08.

7. L.P.A No.63 of 2011 has been filed against the common order dated 19th January 2011 passed in respect of W.P.(C) No.2141 of 2