IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.04.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD C.Srinivasan .. petitioner vs

1.The General Manager District Industries Centre SIDCO Estate Krishnagiri.

2.The Branch Manager SIDCO Branch Office Small Industrial Developers Corporation Krishnagiri.

3.The Assistant Electrical Engineer Operation and Maintenance Department Tamil Nadu Electricity Generation and Distribution Corporation TANGEDCO Sipcot, Hosur Krishnagiri District.

… Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1^st respondent in RC.No.2471/A2/2022 dated 06.01.2025 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant and disburse Capital Subsidy to the petitioner for the purchase of SMART ULTRA CNC LATH MACHINE.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajendran, AGP for R1 & R2.

Mr.Madhusuthanan, Standing counsel for R3.

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in RC.No.2471/A2/2022 dated 06.01.2025 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant and disburse Capital Subsidy to the petitioner for the purchase of SMART ULTRA CNC LATH MACHINE.

2. The Petitioner is registered under MSME, running the manufacturing unit for more than 20 years. The Petitioner purchased a machinery for the improvement of his unit and he is entitled for 25% subsidy from the Government. Therefore, he had approached the 1st Respondent seeking to grant subsidy. The 1st Respondent insisted for NOC from the land lord. The 3rd Respondent who is the land lord, instead of issuing NOC, asked the petitioner to vacate the premises. Therefore, the petitioner has filed O.S.No. 243 of 2022, on the file of Principal Judge, Krishnagiri and the same is pending. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had constructed the shed in his own premises and obtained E.B service connection and shifted the machineries and approached the Respondents, however his claim for capital subsidy is rejected. Therefore this present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court by an order dated 29.08.2022 granted six months time to the petitioner to shift the machinery and also directed to SIDCO not to insist for NOC. Thereafter, the construction of the factory was completed on 25.03.2023 and he applied for EB connection on 18.05.2023, but the Electricity Connection was given on 29.04.2024, after a delay of 11 months, due to which he was not in a position to run the factory.

4. He would further submit that this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the GM, DIC, Krishnagiri to consider petitioner's application within a period of three months from the expiry of the date of shifting of the machinery to the new site provided the petitioner shifts the machinery within six months as stated by the petitioner in para 8 of the additional affidavit.

5. The learned counsel would further submit that the subsidy would roughly comes to Rs.4 lakhs, it will be benefit for the employees of the company who are 15 in number and only for this purpose, the petitioner requested this court to direct the respondents to give one more opportunity to consider the petitioner's application for subsidy.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on written instructions from the GM, DIC, Krishnagiri in RC.No.2471/A2/2022 dated 09.04.2025. The relevant portion of the above letter is reproduced hereunder :-

“10) In this regard, the Industries Commissioner &

Director of Industries & Commerce, Chennai clarified that the Hon'ble Hligh Court of Madras disposed off the Writ Petition directing GM, DIC, Krishnagiri to consider the petitioner's application for subsidy within a period of three months form the expiry of the date of shifting of the machinery to the new site pro