Back
2023 Supreme(Megh) 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.
M/s Meghalaya Feed Products – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
WP (C) Nos. 345, 346 of 2021
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Subject
Administrative Law - Subsidy Claims
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial review of subsidy claims - Cash payment claims must provide sufficient proof for reimbursement; the onus lies with the claimant, especially under evolving payment regulations post-notification. (Paras 10, 12)
(C) Issue of compliance - Respondents did not fully adhere to prior court directives which mandated reconsideration of full claims; an arbitrary basis for claims rationalization was found unacceptable. (Paras 7, 14)
Findings of Court:
The respondents are directed to re-consider and appropriately decide on claims, focusing on the validity of cash payments across specified periods.
Issues: Main issues addressed were the legitimacy of cash transactions for subsidy claims prior to regulatory changes and the adequacy of evidence provided by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner must substantiate claims with adequate proof, particularly when making cash payments, reinforcing that judicial review cannot decide upon disputed facts definitively.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of, allowing petitioner to pursue civil remedies if desired.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: B.P. Todi, A. Todi.
For the Respondents: N. Mozika, S. Rumthao, S. Ain, B.A. Wanswett, P.D. Bujarbaruah.
JUDGMENT :
H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.
1. The writ petitioner is before this Court in a second round of litigation by way of these two writ petitions, and as they are similar are being disposed of by this common order and judgment. These matters concern the grant of subsidy on the transport of raw materials and finished products, under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971, from selected areas to promote industries which includes the State of Meghalaya of which the petitioner firm is a beneficiary.
2. By these writ petitions, the writ petitioner firm is aggrieved with the non-disbursement of the complete amount of transport subsidy, which it claims has been allowed by this Court by order dated 03.05.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 389 and 390 of 2014, wherein, it was held that the requirement for payment by cheque of the expenditure incurred, would not be applicable for the period 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009, the period for which the subsidy had been claimed. It has been contended by the writ petitioner that, the order dated 03.05.2019, had directed the respondents to re-consider the claim, in the light of the observations made therein, for disbursement of the subsidy amount for the period 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009, which however the respondents by the impugned order dated 02.08.2019, though releasing certain amounts, fell short of the amount as claimed by the writ petitioner.
3. In this context, as the matter had been dealt with by this Court in the earlier writ petitions namely WP(C) No. 389 and 390 of 2014, which were disposed of by order dated 03.05.2019, it would be useful to reproduce the same below, for easy reference:
“HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
M/s Meghalaya Feed Products
Versus
The Union of India and Others
WP (C) No. 389 of 2014, WP(C) No. 390 of 2014
Decided On : 03-05-2019
Advocate Appeared :
For the Petitioner : B.P. Todi, A. Todi, P. Agarwal.
For the Respondents : R. Debnath, S. Sengupta, B. Ghosh, P.D.B. Baruah.
Oral:
1. The scheme called the “Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971” has been formulated and notified for grant of subsidy on the transport of raw materials and finished goods to and from the selected areas with a view to promote growth of industries. The State of Meghalaya falls within the selected area “A” of the scheme. In the said area petitioner M/S Meghalaya Feed Products has an industrial unit. Vide letter dated 12.05.2009 issued by the respondent Director of Industries to the petitioner, it has been conveyed that the subsidies had been sanctioned against the claim of the petitioner by the State Level Committee in its 58th meeting held on 07.05.2009 as such, has been advised to contact the North Eastern Development Finance, Guwahati for necessary disbursement. The types of subsidy, period and amount sanctioned are as under:
| S. No. | Types of Subsidy | Period | Amount Sanctioned (Rs) |
| 1. | Central Interest Subsidy | 01.09.05 to 31.03.09 | 24,56,615.00 |
| 2. | Central Transport Subsidy | 01.04.08 to 30.06.08 | 68,12,316.00 |
|
| -do- | 01.07.08 to 30.09.08 | 66,43,080.00 |
|
| -do- | 01.10.08 to 31.12.08 | 94,74,928.00 |
|
| -do- | 01.01.09 to 31.03.09 | 1,38,69,552.00 |
|
|
| Total | 3,92,56,491.00 |
2. So far as the subsidy for the periods of 01.09.2005 to 31.03.2009, 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2008 and 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2008 are concerned same have been disbursed in favour of the petitioner whereas, regarding the Central Transport Subsidy for the periods of 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009, amounting to Rs. 2,33,44,480/- has not been disbursed same has been conveyed to the respondent No. 5 by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of India vide letter dated 02.09.2014 because the expenditure incurred by cash on transportat
