Ashok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4232 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20967 of 2018
     ======================================================

Ashok Kumar Son of Late Parmeshwar Garai Prop. M/S Maa Jagdamba Bricks Industries, resident of Village- Dharambigha, P.S.- Telhara, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Development Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Industry State of Bihar, Patna.

4. The General Manager, District Industry Centre Nalanda at Biharsharif, P.S. and Distt.- Nalanda.

5. The District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif, P.S. and Distt.- Nalanda.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Suresh Kumar AC to GP-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)

Date : 04-08-2022

Heard Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned AC to GP-1 for the

State.

2. In the present application, the petitioner has prayed

for setting aside the order dated 31.07.2018 issued vide Memo Patna High Court CWJC No.20967 of 2018 dt.04-08-2022

No. 2670 by the Director Industries, Bihar, Patna by which the

representation preferred by him for grant of all the benefits

under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 has been

rejected.

3. The case of the petitioner as stated in para 5 of the

writ petition is that he has attempted to start a small scale

industry in the name and style of M/s Maa Jagdamba Bricks

Industries at village- Dharam Bigha, P.S.- Telhara, District-

Nalanda for manufacturing fly ash bricks and pavers. It is stated

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to take

benefits of the promise made by the State of Bihar under the

Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, the petitioner applied with all

relevant documents seeking permission to set up a fly ash bricks

and blocks manufacturing unit which was covered under the list

of industries eligible for incentive under the manufacturing

category. The proposal of the petitioner for seeking approval for

investment of capital in order to get incentive under the 2011

policy of the State of Bihar was approved by the District Level

Single Window Clearance Committee in its meeting held on

07.01.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased a 625 KVA DG

Set at the cost of Rs.5,32,680/- from On Sai Bijay Power G.B.

Road, Gaya. He purchased Fly Ash concrete brick hydrolic Patna High Court CWJC No.20967 of 2018 dt.04-08-2022

power fully automatic electric motor of 15 HP and other articles

for Rs.21,91,000/- from Shanti Industries, Asansol. He wrote a

letter to the General Manager, District Industries Centre,

Nalanda for subsidy on DG set but no action was taken by the

respondents.

4. The petitioner has stated in para 10 of his

application that he has invested several lacs in his small scale

industry and he is paying interest on bank loan but he is not

manufacturing the produce as per his wishes due to scarcity of

fund.

5. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier by

filing a writ petition being CWJC No.3352 of 2018 which was

disposed of on 29.03.2018 with a direction to the respondents to

consider his representation and take decision in the matter.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation

before the Director Industries Bihar, Patna who has passed the

impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the

ground that since the project of the petitioner was not approved

by the competent authority, the benefit of Industrial Incentive

Policy, 2011 cannot be extended to the manufacturing unit of the

petitioner even though it had got approval of the District Level

Single Window Clearance Committee.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20967 of 2018 dt.04-08-2022

7. Mr. Anjani Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the

Director Industries Bihar, Patna is a glaring example of

executive arbitrariness and administrative high-handedness.

There was no reason for the respondents to reject the claim of

the petitioner as the petitioner's unit had duly been granted

recommendation by the District Level Single Window

Clearance Committee and, if any other approval was required, it

was for the respondents to process it. If it required approval of

the competent authority, it was for the respondents to place the

application of the petitioner before the competent authority.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State

submitted that initially the claim of the petitioner was rejected

by the respondents whereafter he had approached this Court by

filing C.W.J.C. No. 3352 of 2018 which was disposed of with a

direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the

petitioner and take a decision in the matter. When the petitioner

filed his representation, once again, it was placed before the

State Level Committee and in its meeting dated 31.5.2018 and

the Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground

that the project of the petitioner had no approval of the

competent authority. He contended that the Industrial Incentive Patna High Court CWJC No.20967 of 2018 dt.04-08-2022

Policy, 2011 is no more in existence. Presently, the Industrial

Incentive Policy, 2016 is in existence. In case, the petitioner is

entitled to capital subsidy under the new policy, he is free to

apply afresh under the new policy. He further contended that

unless the project is approved by the competent authority, no

benefit can be extended to any entrepreneur under the Industrial

Incentive Policy, 2011. He further contended that nowhere it has

been mentioned by the petitioner in his writ petition as to when

the petitioner's unit actually commenced commercial

production.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

carefully perused the records.

10. It would be pertinent to note here that the State

Government came out with Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 to

promote industrial development within the State on review of

the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2006 and the change in

global incentive scenario with the pious object of attracting

domestic and foreign investment as well as for revival and

expansion of business operations of the existing industrial unit.

The policy was approved by the cabinet and was published in

the official gazette on 10.06.2011. The case of the petitioner is

that in order to take advantage of the promise made by the State Patna High Court CWJC No.20967 of 2018 dt.04-08-2022

under the Industrial Incentive Unit, 2011, he applied with all

relevant documents before the respondent-authorities to set up

fly ash bricks and pavers. His unit altered its position by making

huge investment.

11. From a perusal of the Industrial Incentive Policy,

2011, it would be manifest that the incentives under the scheme

has to be given to the industrial units after commencement of

commercial production. The pleadings made by the petitioner in

the present application are quite vague. It has not been

mentioned in any of the paragraph of the writ petition as to

when the petitioner's unit commenced commercial production.

12. Moreover, the application of the petitioner has been

rejected on the ground that it had no approval of the competent

authority. The petitioner has not been able to show us that the

unit set up by him had approval of the State Investment

Promotion Board, which has been held to be the competent

authority by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment

dated 29.07.2019 passed in CWJC No.12104 of 2018 and

analogous cases (M/s Sunny Star Hotels Private Ltd. vs. the

State of Bihar & Ors.).

13. Under such circumstances, no relief can be granted

to the petitioner as no fault can be found with the impugned Patna High Court CWJC No.20967 of 2018 dt.04-08-2022

order by which the representation of the petitioner has been

rejected.

14. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

( Shailendra Singh, J)

rohit/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          08-08-2022
Transmission Date       NA