Trans Asia Shipping vs Agency For Non-Conventional Energy And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8635 Ker

Kerala High Court

Trans Asia Shipping vs Agency For Non-Conventional Energy And ... on 27 March, 2024

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
  WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA,
                           1946
                  WP(C) NO. 4356 OF 2016
PETITIONER:

          TRANS ASIA SHIPPING SERVICES (P) LTD.
          REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS.MARYLIN
          JOHNSON, W/O.JOHNSON MATHEW, RESIDING AT
          KODINJOOR HOUSE, H NO.XI/50C, BMC PO,
          KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM , KERALA, PIN 682 030
          HAVING ITS OFFICE AT TRANS ASIA CORPORATE PARK,
          SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, CHITTETHUKARA, KAKKANAD,
          KOCHI 682 037.
          BY ADV SRI.P.SATHISAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL
          TECHNOLOGY (ANERT)
          REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR PMG - LAW COLLEGE
          ROAD, VIKAS BHAVAN PO,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
    2     SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF POWER
          GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, NORTH BLOCK,
          SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 605 001.
    3     PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC OFFICER SPV DIVISION
          MINISTRY OF NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (MNRE)
          BLOCK NO.14, CELIO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW
          DELHI 110003.
    4     UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF POWER REPRESENTED
          BY SECRETARY SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN,
          NEW DELHI-110 001
    5     TEAM SUSTAIN ENGINEERING GREEN SOLUTIONS
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
          & MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING OFFICE ADDRESS AT
          ASIA PACIFIC, TEAM HOUSE, PLOT NO.71, MRA,
          KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030.
                                      2
W.P.(C) No.4356 of 2016



              BY ADV.K.A.BALAN (CGC) R4, R3




              SRI. T.K. SHAJAHAN -GP


       THIS     WRIT      PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   27.03.2024,     THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    3
W.P.(C) No.4356 of 2016




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024

The petitioner is a private limited company which

installed a solar energy system expecting that it would get

subsidy from the respondents. According to the petitioner, it

has expended a total amount of Rs.56,28,000/- of which it is

entitled to get a subsidy amount of Rs.16,88,400/-. According

to the petitioner, it is found eligible for the subsidy and the

disbursement of the subsidy is delayed. Hence, the petitioner

approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition

seeking direction from the respondents to disburse the

subsidy amount specified in Ext.P3 with interest for the

delayed period within a time limit fixed by this Court.

2. The respondent No.1 filed a Statement dated

20.06.2016, the respondent No.2 filed a Counter affidavit

dated 11.06.2019 and the respondents Nos.3 & 4 filed a

Statement dated 20.06.2016 opposing the prayers in the Writ

Petition.

3. The Pleadings on the side of the respondents are to

the effect that the Respondent No.1 is only a nodal agency;

that Ministry of New and Renewable Energy( 'MNRE' for short

hereafter) , the Principal Scientific Officer of which is made a

party in the Writ Petition as Respondent No.3, is the

competent authority to approve and sanction the installation

of solar energy system and its subsidy;that on submission of

the application, the Respondent No.1 verified the same and

found that the documents submitted by the petitioner were

not complete; that the petitioner was requested to forward

the Application along with the requisite documents in the

prescribed format; that, in that Communication also, it is

stated that the petitioner would be issued a sanction order

and based on which alone the installation had to be

completed; that the petitioner had gone ahead with

installation before obtaining sanction and therefore it is not

entitled to get subsidy; that MNRE has not sanctioned the

proposal of the petitioner and that no subsidy was

assured/sanctioned/approved for the project of the petitioner;

that MNRE is not legally liable to release any amount of

subsidy for the project already installed; that the action taken

to go ahead with the installation by the 5 th respondent before

getting sanction from MNRE is quite illegal and improper.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as the learned Government Pleader, who is representing

the respondent No.1.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me to

Ext.P3, which according to him, has approved the proposal of

the petitioner for subsidy finding that it is eligible to get a

subsidy of 16,88,400/-. Ext.P3 is a Communication dated

17.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.1 to the respondent

No.3 stating that the three proposals mentioned therein,

which include the proposal of the petitioner as item No.1,

were found to be eligible and are forwarded for approval and

release of subsidy and that eligible amount of capital subsidy

and admissible service charge may be sanctioned. Going by

Ext.P3, it reveals that the respondent No.1 is only a

processing agency, and it has only forwarded proposal for

approval to the respondent No.3, which is the ultimate

authority to give approval and release of the subsidy.

6. The respondent No.3 has issued Ext.P4

communication dated 02.04.2013 to the Director of the

respondent No.3 stating that, the first phase of JNNSM is

over; that some submitted proposals by the respondent No.1

were not considered due to lack of funds; that these proposals

are returned back and; that it is suggested that these

proposals may be resubmitted in proper format after the

announcement of JNNSM second Phase.

7. Ext.P4 communication was forwarded to the petitioner

as per Ext.P5 communication dated 11.07.2013 by the

respondent No.1.

8. The petitioner has not produced any document to

show that it has resubmitted the proposal for approval and

release of the subsidy thereafter.

9. It appears that the petitioner proceeded with the work

without getting approval/sanction from the respondent No.3.

10. Ext.P3 issued by the respondent No.1 cannot be

construed as an approval or sanction. Moreover, going by the

stand taken by the respondent No.1 in its Statement and also

the facts revealed in Ext.P3, the respondent No.1 has no right

or authority to give approval for the Project or for the release

of the subsidy.

11. Whatever ble the reasons stated in Ext.P4, the fact is

that the petitioner proceeded and completed the work without

getting approval or sanction from the respondent No.3 for the

project. That apart, there is no document before me to show

that any assurance or promise was given either by the

respondent No.1 or the respondent No.3 that the petitioner

would get a subsidy for the solar energy system installed by

it. There is no justification for the petitioner to expect or

believe that he would get approval for the project or sanction

for subsidy when it did not re-submit any proposal after

returning its original proposal as per Ext.P4 which is

communicated to him as per Ext.P5.

I find no merit in this writ petition. Hence, this writ

petition is dismissed without costs.

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE SMF

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4356/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.7.2012 SENT BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER EXHIBITS P2- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATES SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P3- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE RELEASE OF SUBSIDY EXHIBITS P4- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBITS P5- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.7.2013

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY MNRE NO.5/23/2009-P&C DATED 8TH JULY 2010