The court emphasized that the eligibility for subsidy under the MSME Scheme is based on installed capacity rather than actual production figures, rejecting the erroneous interpretation by the authorities.

ORDER :

SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.

1.Heard.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. Appropriate writ, Direction or Order in the nature of certiorari or other to quash the orders dated 04.08.2023 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Annexure P/), order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P/) passed by Respondent No.2 in appeal and order dated 4.10.2024 (Annexure P/) passed by Respondent No.1 in second appeal.

2. Appropriate writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other to direct the Respondents to remit the amount of subsidy at the rate of 40% of the total invested value of Rs.509 lakhs + 107 lakhs to the petitioner in terms of the M.P. MSME Protsahan Scheme and Policy of 2019.

3. Appropriate writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other to direct the Respondents to pay interest @ 12% or any other rate as deemed fit on the amount of interest from the date the same was due till the date of payment.

4. Costs of this petition may be awarded,

5. Any other appropriate relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be awarded to the petitioner.”

3.The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P/3), passed in a second appeal filed under Clause 20 of M.P. Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Protsahan Scheme, 2019 by the respondent No.1 – the Principal Secretary, M.S.M.E, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.

4.Vide the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 has affirmed the order dated 19.12.2023, passed in the first appeal by respondent No.2 the Commissioner, M.S.M.E., affirming the original order dated 04.08.2023, passed by respondent No.4, the General Manager, District Industry and Trade Centre, (DITC), District – Rajgarh, denying the benefit of subsidy under the Scheme of 2019.

5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Limited Company, also registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short 'the MSME Act of 2006'). The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of PVC pipe. According to the petitioner, in the year 2019, the State Government floated a Scheme known as „M.P. Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Protsahan Scheme, 2019‟ (hereinafter referred to as „the Scheme of 2019‟) in which certain subsidy was provided on account of expansion, diversification and technical up- gradation of the MSME unit. Acting upon the said scheme of 2019, the petitioner also made substantial investment to the tune of Rs.508 Lakhs towards the plant and machinery and Rs.107 Lakhs in factory building, thus, in all around Rs.6 Crores investments were made.

6.However, instead of the Scheme of 2019, the petitioner erroneously claimed the subsidy under a similar Scheme of 2017 before the District Level Committee by filing the application on 23.06.2020. The aforesaid application was rejected by the District Level Committed vide its order dated 21.10.2022 on the ground that the petitioner's capacity to manufacture has decreased in the year 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing first appeal under Rule 17 of the said Scheme of 2017 before the respondent No.2 on 14.11.2022, who dismissed the same on 27.01.2023 (Annexure P/11) on the same ground, affirming the order passed by the respondent No.4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal on 30.01.2023, before the respondent No.1 Principal Secretary, MSME, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, who disposed of the same vide order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P/17) holding that the orders passed by the authority was under the old Scheme of 2017