Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. THANGKHIEW
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim on transport subsidy. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on claim and delays. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on subsidy applicability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. impact of prior claims and delays. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final dismissal of petition. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
H.S. THANGKHIEW, J.
1. The writ petitioner by way of the instant writ petition has assailed the action of the respondents in short sanctioning the claim of the petitioner company on account of transport subsidy under the Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971, for the period 01-11-2011 to 31-03-2013. Further challenge is also made to the inaction of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India in not issuing necessary clarification as sought for by the Government of Meghalaya.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the short sanctioning of the claim was on the basis of a letter dated 04-10-2013, which was subsequently withdrawn and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the full amount of transport subsidy as per the claim submitted.
3. Dr. A.Saraf, learned Sr. counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the claim of the company for th
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....
The court's intervention to direct the release of outstanding bills in installments when the respondent authorities admitted the outstanding bill amount but failed to release the payment.
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.
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
