Back
H. S. THANGKHIEW
Meghalaya Feed Products – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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-
Late filing of a writ petition regarding previously settled claims prohibits reconsideration, reaffirming the principle of finality in administrative decisions.
Claims for transport subsidy under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 should be processed without undue delay, and rejections based on administrative lapses are not permissible.
The court upheld the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, ruling that the government must honor its prior subsidy commitments under the Transport Subsidy Scheme despite cance....
Grant of transport subsidy - Requirements - Court not find that subsidy scheme covers such a situation. Court have reproduced relevant portion of scheme. The term “selected area” is defined as to inc....
Subsidy claims under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund are contingent upon strict adherence to procedural guidelines; failure to comply negates entitlement, especially after scheme closure.
The main legal point established is that the entitlement to subsidies under the WBSSIS-2008 should be determined based on the specific provisions of the Scheme, and the refusal of subsidies based on ....
The judgment underscores the significance of adherence to the EMA scheme guidelines and the importance of proper certification in claiming benefits under the scheme.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
