Madras High Court
M/S. Divyam Spinners vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 July, 2021
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
M/s. Divyam Spinners,
Rep. by its Partner Mr.T.S.Venkatasubramaniam
5, B.K. Thottaipatti Road,
Rajapalayam – 626117. .... Appellant
versus
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600009.
2.The Director of Industries and Commerce,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600005.
3.The General Manager,
District Industries Centre,
Virudhunagar. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
Order dated 27.08.2019 in W.P.No.24024 of 2011 of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice
M.Dhandapani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1 of 6
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
For Appellant .. Mr.A.L.Ganthimathi
For Respondents .. Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh
Government Advocate [R1 to R3]
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This intra-Court Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the
learned single Judge dated 27.08.2019 in W.P.No.24024 of 2011, in and by
which, the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of subsidy has been rejected.
2. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner which was a factory,
obtained SSI Certificate for claiming Low Tension Power Subsidy from 2nd
respondent herein. The grievance of the appellant is that though it is entitled
to the subsidy of Rs.89,457/- for the period from 23.09.1996 to 22.01.1998,
but it was not granted by the respondents/authorities. This is the second
round of litigation. On earlier occasion when the appellant came forward
with a writ petition, seeking to direct the authorities to grant subsidy, this
Court dismissed, however, on appeal, this Court while confirming the
rejection order of the learned single Judge, liberty was given to file a fresh
application, which again led to the rejection of the claim made by the
appellant both by the respondents/authorities and learned single Judge of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come forward with the
present Writ Appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even
as per the counter made by the respondent, the unit was running till 4.8.1998,
while the subsidy has been sought for a period prior to that i.e. from from
23.09.1996 to 22.01.1998 and therefore, the appellant is entitled to subsidy
and hence the order requires interference.
4. We do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant. The object of providing the subsidy by the
Government is to give an impetus by way of encouragement to the existing
units. Admittedly, at the time of considering the disbursement of the subsidy,
the appellant's unit was closed. This issue was raised and clarified by
respondent No.2 in and by proceedings dated 06.09.2011 which we would
like to extract as under:
"In this connection, your are informed that as per Circular
issued from this office letter No.36347/KA4/1996 dated
10.04.1996, "the General Managers of District Industries Centres
are instructed to verify as to whether the SSI units are existing with
same constitution etc., and then only draw and disburse the
subsidies to them after fulfillment of all conditions prescribed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
therein."
Accordingly, when your unit was inspected by the officers
from District Industries Centre, Virudhunagar for disbursing of
LTPT subsidy, your unit was not functioning. Hence, the LTPT
subsidy claim preferred by you was rejected by the General
Manager, District Industries Centre, Virudhunagar vide his letter
K.Dis.No.LTPT 122/A7/1997 dated 08.09.2003.
Further, the General Manager, District Industries Centre,
Virudhunagar vide ref 3rd cited, has informed that the officials from
his office inspected your unit once again on 12.08.2011 and it was
found that your unit is not in existence and remained closed since
04.09.1998. He has also informed that one of the two partners of
the unit Tmt V.Jayalakshi @ Manjula w/o Thiru
P.S.Venkasubramanian expired in 2008. In as much as the unit
remains closed since 04.08.1998 and since one of the partners Tmt
V.Jayalakshmi is said to have been passed away in 2008, it is
construed that the unit is not as it was originally constituted."
5. A perusal of the above, it is clear that the appellant's unit was closed
and since the subsidy will be provided only in respect of existing and
functioning Units alone and the defunct units are not eligible to receive LTPT
subsidy, the appellant's being defunct unit is not entitled to. Therefore, the
respondents/authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the appellant, which
was also rightly confirmed by the learned single Judge. Subsidy is not a
matter of right. Claiming subsidy that too for a defunct unit is contrary to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
instructions of the Government. The wisdom behind the subsidy cannot be
gone into nor extended by this Court. In such view of the matter, we do not
find any scope to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. No
costs.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
14.07.2021
suk/sni
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Industries Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600009.
2.The Director of Industries and Commerce,
Chepauk,
Chennai – 600005.
3.The General Manager,
District Industries Centre,
Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA, J.
suk/sni
W.A.No.1152 of 2021
14.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
