Bombay High Court
M/S Prerna Stone Crusher Thr. Its ... vs The Govt. Of Maharashtra Thr. Its ... on 18 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp137.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.137 OF 2015
M/s. Prerna Stone Crusher,
through its Proprietor,
Shri Mahendra Jagdishprasad
Tardeja, Registered Office,
at Prerna Agency, near
Nagar Palika, Akot, District
Akola. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) The Government of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Ministry of
Industries, Energy and Labour
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Additional Commissioner of
Industries, Opposite Mantralaya,
Colaba, Mumbai.
3) The Joint Director of Industries,
Regional Office of Industries,
Amravati.
4) The General Manager, District
Industrial Centre, Akola. ... Respondents
----------------
Shri A.B. Moon, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri B.M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondents.
----------------
::: Uploaded on - 21/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:27:15 :::
2 wp137.15
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 18, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2) Submission of Adv. Moon for petitioner is that
petitioner, which was registered as a small scale
industry, has been given advantage of a package
incentive scheme formulated on 30/3/2007 by
Government of Maharashtra. As per that scheme,
petitioner is entitled to royalty refund on purchase of
minerals from mines owners within State of
Maharashtra for a period of five years. The petitioner
commenced production in the year 2010-11 and has
been given that refund for the said year. However, for
later years, it has not been released on totally
erroneous and arbitrary grounds. He submits that
3 wp137.15
corrigendum issued on 29/8/2012 is on interest
subsidy, which has got no bearing on the matter. The
Circular dated 17/6/2011, which refers to discussion
dated 8/2/2011, for the first time defines royalty and
essentially co-relates it with major minerals. As
petitioner does not require and use major minerals, the
royalty refund appears to have been declined.
3) Adv. Moon contends that thus a provision not
in force when petitioner started its unit has been made
applicable to deny petitioner the benefit of incentive
scheme. He is relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co.
Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others
(AIR 1979 SC 621) and order dated 9/1/2014 of this
Court in Writ Petition No. 5801/2012 to urge that such
withdrawal is legally unsustainable. The principles of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation are
attracted and the incentive scheme cannot be modified
retrospectively.
4 wp137.15
4) Shri Lonare, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for respondents, on the other hand, relies upon
reply affidavit. He submits that State Government has
later on found it necessary to co-relate royalty refund
with use of major minerals and hence, petitioner unit,
which uses minor minerals, cannot be given royalty
refund.
5) It is not in dispute that position has been
brought about by Circular dated 17/6/2011. The basic
Circular is on issue of royalty refund only and it refers to
incentive scheme of 2007. The incentive scheme of
2007 is laid down by Government Resolution dated
30/3/2007. Admittedly, in that scheme, royalty refund
is dealt by Clause 5.5, which reads thus :
"5.5 Royalty Refund :
All eligible units, new as well as units
undertaking expansion in Vidarbha region will
be eligible for refund of royalty paid on
purchase of minerals from mine owners within
5 wp137.15
the State of Maharashtra for a period of five
years from the date of commencement of
commercial production."
That clause, therefore, does not restrict refund of
royalty only for major minerals.
6)
As petitioner has been permitted to start its
unit on the basis of package incentive scheme of 2007
as prescribed by Government Resolution dated
30/3/2007, without appropriately modifying that
Government Resolution and that too retrospectively,
petitioner cannot be denied benefit of royalty benefit.
In fact, petitioner has been refunded royalty for the first
year, i.e. 2010-11.
7) In this situation, we quash and set aside the
impugned communication dated 29/8/2012 and direct
respondents to refund to petitioner the royalty in terms
of Clause 5.5 of package incentive scheme of 2007
within three months from today.
6 wp137.15
8) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
