Delhi High Court
Girraj Fertilizers & Chemicals ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 June, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
25.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 523/2011
Date of order: 2nd June, 2011
GIRRAJ FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS LTD..... Appellant
Through Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sarat Chandra, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
DIPAK MISRA, CJ.:
CM No. 11228/2011
Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just
exceptions.
CM No. 11227/2011
This is an application for condonation of delay of 38 days.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find sufficient
ground exists for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal
and accordingly the same stands condoned.
LPA No. 523/2011 Page 1 of 6
The application is disposed of.
LPA No. 523/2011
Heard Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Sarat Chandra, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Calling in question the legal propriety of the order dated
21st February, 2011 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
6759/2001, the present intra-Court appeal has been filed. In the
writ petition, the appellant had prayed for following reliefs:
"a) issue an appropriate writ order or
direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2
directing them to immediately release
payment of concession of petitioners
withheld by them which concession is
otherwise payable to the petitioner under the
scheme.
b) Issue an appropriate writ/order or
direction quashing the order dated 28.9.2001
issued by the respondent No. 2.
c) Direct the respondents to release ad
hoc payment of concession to the petitioners
in future without insisting that the petitioners
purchase the raw materials from any
specified source.
d) Direct the respondents to pay to the
petitioners interest at the ruling bank rate for
the delay in payment of concession from the
date from which the payment was due till the
date of its payment.
LPA No. 523/2011 Page 2 of 6
e) Award cost of these proceedings to the
petitioners.
f) Pass such other order or orders which
this court may deem fit and proper in the
facts of this case as well as in the interest of
justice."
3. The competent authority of the Government of India has
passed the following order on the question of categorization of
the appellant:
"Category „C‟
The units which have bought rock phosphate
mostly from private sources have been
placed in this category. Some of units have
gone to the extent of showing procurement
of rock phosphate from non-existent
sources. In respect of all such units,
majority of the SSP production was based
on purchase of rock phosphate which was
found to be either false or could not be
verified by the concerned investigating
agency. The names of the units falling in
this category are:
1. Girraj Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
2. Gages Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
3. Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
4. Neera Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
5. Dynatech Petrochem Ltd.
6. Vijay Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
7. Paras Packing papers (Pvt.) Ltd.
8. Shubham Fertilizers.
9. Khushal Polymers India Ltd.
10.S.D. Fertilizers and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
11. Shri Behariji Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd.
The State Government of U.P. is directed to
LPA No. 523/2011 Page 3 of 6
file FIR and take appropriate legal/penal
action against them. For these units, claims
under Concession Scheme shall be
processed only after the outcome of
legal/penal proceedings to be initiated
against these units. The State Government
is also requested to investigate about their
production and sales of SSP prior to the
period of 98-99 because there is a strong
possibility that these units might have
claimed concession on SSP produced and
sold by adopting similar fraudulent methods.
2. The Government of U.P. is requested
to immediately take steps to implement the
future course of action suggested in the
foregoing paragraph of this letter."
4. It is worth noting, the appellant was put in category „C‟ for
the grant of subsidy.
5. The appellant, who was petitioner No. 8 before the learned
single Judge, has prayed for grant of subsidy and the quashing
of the order of classification as A, B and C. The learned single
Judge has dealt with the facet of categorization in paragraphs 11
and 12. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same:
"11. As regards units that are placed in
Category „C‟ the rationale behind such
classification is to be found in the impugned
Notification dated 28th September 2001 as
under:
"Category „C‟
The units which have brought rock
LPA No. 523/2011 Page 4 of 6
phosphate mostly from private
sources have been placed in this
category. Some of units have gone
to the extent of showing procurement
of rock phosphate from non-existent
sources. In respect of all such units,
majority of the SSP production was
based on purchase of rock
phosphate which was found to be
either false or could not be verified by
the concerned investigating agency."
12. It would be a disputed question of fact
whether in fact the petitioner No. 8 has been
rightly put under Category „C‟. There is
already a criminal case pending and any
observation made by this Court in this regard
at this stage on that aspect would be
inappropriate. Also, the basis for classifying
the companies into Categories A, B and C
have been cogently explained in the
impugned notification. It is not possible to
hold the said classification to be arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution."
6. In our considered opinion, there is no fault in the said
analysis and hence, does not require any kind of interference.
That apart, the question of grant of subsidy at this juncture does
not arise as a criminal case has been filed pursuant to the
directions given by the Union of India. Thus, the learned single
Judge is justified in holding that it is open to the petitioner No. 8
to seek appropriate remedies available to it in accordance with
law.
LPA No. 523/2011 Page 5 of 6
7. In view of the aforesaid premise reasoning, we do not
perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same
stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JUNE 02, 2011
VKR
