Late filing of a writ petition regarding previously settled claims prohibits reconsideration, reaffirming the principle of finality in administrative decisions.

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that the short sanctioning of the claim was on the basis of a letter dated 04-10-2013, which was subsequently withdrawn and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the full amount of transport subsidy as per the claim submitted.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 the period 01-11-2011 to 31-03-2013 was considered by the 70^th State Level Committee and vide letter dated 30-09-2013, the claim of the petitioner was sanctioned, though with a shortfall of Rs. 4.61 crores. The reason he submits, was ascribed to a letter dated 04-10-2023, which had stipulated that subsidy is not admissible for transportation cost incurred for interstate movement of finished goods within the North Eastern States beyond the railway station nearest to the destination. It is then submitted that the petitioner company had then vide letter dated 05-12-2013, addressed to the respondent No. 7 pointed out that the date of claim application as well as the date of the 70^th State Level Committee meeting was prior to the letter dated 04-10-2013 and as such, there was no reason for the shortfall in payment.

4. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 04-07-2014, the earlier letter dated 04-10-2013, was withdrawn and the cost of transportation beyond the railway head nearest to the destination point of delivery was allowed. The petitioner company, it is then submitted on 04-05-2016, addressed a letter to the respondent No. 7, requesting the sanction of the balance amount and that on the basis of this representation, the respondent No. 7 vide letter dated 28-02-2019, had written to the respondent No. 2 seeking response and clarification. The petitioner company he submits, thereafter, pursued the matter as also the respondent No. 7 till the year 2022, which however, met with no response. It is contended that there being no impediment to the sanctioning of the shortfall in payment, in view of the changed circumstances brought about by the letter dated 04- 07-2014, the action of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in not issuing the clarification for the same, amounts to the violation of the vested rights of the petitioner company, which calls for interference by this Court in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Dr. N.Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. M.Myrchiang, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, has at the outset submitted that the writ petition is hopelessly delayed, and on this ground alone deserves no consideration. The learned DSGI then submits that the writ petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition only in 2023, when the matter in fact relates to payments that were made in 2013 and had culminated in the Notification dated 04-07-2014, wherein it had been given in para 5 thereof, that the claims which had already been settled need not be re- considered/reopened. Learned DSGI then contends that there is no question of any further clarification as sought to be made out by the petitioner and in fact, the instant case has been filed to circumvent the inescapable delay that the petitioner would face if resort