SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
R. Y. B. Frozen Foods Pvt. Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WPC 2028/2019



Advocates:
['MALAY SHRIVASTAVA', '', 'Prateek Kumar singh', 'Somraj Shrivastava', 'ASSTT S G']

-1-

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WP(C) No. 2028 of 2019

R. Y. B. Frozen Foods Pvt. Limited A Company Registered Under The

Indian Companies Act 1956, through its Director Hemraj Bain, Son Of

Late H.P. Bain, Occupation Entrepreneur, Presently Working As Director

Of R. Y. B. Frozen Foods Pvt. Limited, R/o 91 Last Vista Residency

V. I. P. Road Amlidih Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Food Processing

Industries Panchsheel Bhawan Agust Kranti Marg New Delhi 110049,

District : New Delhi, Delhi

2. Secretary, Mega Food Park Division Government Of India Ministry Of

Food Processing Industries Panchsheel Bhawan Agust Kranti Marg New

Delhi 110049, District : New Delhi, Delhi

3. Secretary, C.E.F.P.P.C. Division Government Of India Ministry Of Food

Processing Industries Panchsheel Bhawan Agust Kranti Marg New Delhi

110049, District : New Delhi, Delhi

4. Deputy Industrial Adviser C.E.F.P.P.C. Division Government Of India

Ministry Of Food Processing Industries Panchsheel Bhawan Agust

Kranti Marg New Delhi 110049, District : New Delhi, Delhi

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Isha Jajodia,

Advocate.

For the respondent/

Union of India

: Shri Ramakant Mishra, Asst. S.G. with

Shri Suyashdhar Diwan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

Order on Board

11.11.2021

Heard.

1. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that under the scheme of

establishment of Mega Food Park in the State of Chhattisgarh,

respondent No.1 invited proposals for establishment of Food Processing

Industries. The petitioner having the eligibility submitted the proposals

for the same. But respondent No.1 modified the guidelines, according

-2-

to which, the New Food Processing Industries were to be established

only in the States having Mega Food Parks, according to the modified

scheme. As there was no Mega Food Park operational in the State of

Chhattisgarh, the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by order dated

31.7.2018. It is submitted that the Director of the Petitioner Company,

namely, Hemraj Bain is a member of scheduled caste. Another

modification has been made in the revised guidelines (Annexure-P/11)

on 19.9.2018, in which there is a special provision for SC/ ST

entrepreneurs, therefore, the petitioner had eligibility. It is mentioned in

the reply of the respondents that the petitioner should have approached

to the SPV for allotment of plot in the Mega Food Park and it was not

necessary to wait for operationalization of the Mega Food Park for

allotment of plots for setting up of food processing units. It is also

submitted that even though the Mega Food Park was not operational,

the respondents should have considered on the proposal filed by the

petitioner. Hence, the order of cancellation of this proposal (Annexure-

P/10) is totally erroneous and arbitrary, regarding which, prayer has

been made to cancel or to quash the orders dated 31.7.2018 and

1.2.2019, directing the respondents to accept the proposal of the

petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions and

submits that the petitioner company does not have any eligibility

because of which, the proposal that was made by the petitioner was not

within the scheme of the Creation/ Expansion of Food Processing and

Preservation Capacities Scheme (CEFPPC), which was to be

implemented by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government

of India. It is also submitted that by the minutes of Inter-Ministerial

Approval Committee (IMAC) regarding the meeting held on 18.1.2019,

-3-

the proposal of the petitioner has not been approved according to

agenda item No.16, therefore, the petitioner has been found ineligible

for allotment of any project

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top