M/S. Glatt Solution (P) Limited vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 346 Patna

Patna High Court

M/S. Glatt Solution (P) Limited vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2026

Author: Anil Kumar Sinha

Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16164 of 2022
     ======================================================
     M/s Responce Renewable Energy Limited a Limited Company incorporated
     under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
     76, Pandit Purushottam Roy Street, 3rd floor, Kilkata - 700007, West Bengal,
     through its General Manager namely Sant Prasad, (Male), aged about 45
     years, son of Sri Dudh Nath Tiwari, Resident of Baramudi, P.S. Baramudi,
     District - Dhanbad (Jharkhand).

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry,
     Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Director of Industries, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar,
     Patna.
4.   The Deputy Director (Technical), Department of Industries, Government of
     Bihar, Patna.
5.   The General Manager, District Industry Centre, Patna.

                                                             ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
                                         with
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16335 of 2022
     ======================================================
     M/s. Glatt Solution (P) Limited, A Private Limited Company incorporated
     under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
     76, Pandit Purshottam Roy Street, 3rd Floor, Kolkata- 700007 through its
     General Manager namely Sant Prasad, (Male), aged about 45 years, Son of Sri
     Dudh Nath Tiwari, Resident of Baramudi, P.S.- Baramudi, District- Dhanbad
     (Jharkhand).

                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry,
     Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
2.   The Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar,
     Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
3.   The Director of Industries, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar,
     Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
4.   The Deputy Director (Technical), Department of Industries, Government of
     Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna.
5.   The General Manager, District Industry Centre, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
 Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026
                                           2/19




       Appearance :
       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16164 of 2022)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agarwal
                                         Ms. Aditi Hansaria
                                         Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj
       For the Respondent/s      :       Mr.Abbas Haider, SC 6
                                         Mr. Wasi Mohammad, AC to SC 6
       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16335 of 2022)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr.Nikhil Kumar Agarwal
                                         Ms. Aditi Hansaria
                                         Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj
       For the Respondent/s      :       Mr.Kinkar Kumar, SC 9
                                         Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, AC to SC 9
       ======================================================
       CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

       JUDGMENT AND ORDER
             C.A.V.

         Date : 09-02-2026

                    The petitioners are the companies engaged in the

       generation of solar power and have filed the present writ

       applications for quashing of the orders, dated 12.09.2022 and

       26.09.2022

, issued vide Memo Nos. SIPB/906 and SIPB/114,

respectively, by the respondent-Director of Industries, Bihar and

for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the interest subsidy

of 2 per cent on the term loan of rupees 49.92 crores and 16.50

crores, respectively. The petitioners have further prayed for a

declaration that the companies are entitled for the interest subsidy

from the date of commercial production, i.e. 30.03.2017 and

28.02.2017 respectively till seven years, as provided under the

Industrial Incentive (Amendment) Policy, 2014.

2. I. A. No. 1 of 2025 has been filed in both the writ

applications for amendment in the prayer for a direction to the Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

respondent-State to disburse the amount of Rs. 5,57,84,700/- and Rs.

1,90,66,231/- respectively towards the interest subsidy for a period

of 7 years from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2024 and 01.03.2017 to

01.03.2024 respectively, and also to pay interest at the rate of 2 per

cent upon the entire calculated amount.

3. Considering the nature of prayer made in the I. A.

Nos. 01 of 2025, in both the writ applications, the same are

allowed and will take the forming part of the main writ

applications.

BRIEF FACTS OF CWJC No. 16164 OF 2022

4. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company, duly

incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, on

13.12.2011, bearing Corporate Identity Number

U31908WB2007PLC118886, and having its registered office at

76, Pandit Purushottam Roy Street, Kolkata.

5. With a view to promote industrial development within

the State of Bihar, the Government of Bihar formulated and

notified the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 (herein after

referred to as '2011 Policy'), promising various fiscal and non-

fiscal incentives to attract industrial investment.

6. The 2011 Policy was approved by the State Cabinet

and notified in the Official Gazette vide Resolution No. 691, dated Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

09.06.2011, issued by the Department of Industries and published

on 10.06.2011. A copy of the 2011 Policy has been annexed as

Annexure 2 to the writ application.

7. Upon mid-term review of the 2011 Policy, the State

Government decided to introduce certain amendments in the 2011

Policy. Accordingly, the Department of Industries issued the

Industrial Incentive (Amendment) Policy, 2014 (herein after

referred to as the '2014 Amendment Policy'), vide Letter No. 11,

dated 05.01.2015, which was made effective from the date of its

notification (Annexure 4).

8. The 2014 Amendment Policy was framed by

introducing specific amendments to the 2011 Policy, and Clause 8

thereof inserted sub-paragraph (vi) in Paragraph 4 of the 2011

Policy, thereby providing for grant of interest subsidy at the rate of

2 per cent on the interest charged on term loans availed from the

banks or financial institutions, payable for a maximum period of

seven years from the date of commencement of commercial

production.

9. In furtherance of the promises made under the 2014

Amendment Policy, the Department of Industries, Government of

Bihar, issued a notification bearing Memo No. 982, dated

11.06.2015, laying down the procedure for grant of interest Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

subsidy and specifying the date from which the amendment would

take effect (Annexure-5).

10. The petitioner company applied for approval of the

proposal for establishment of 25 MW power generation solar unit,

initially proposed to be set up at Madhubani, Buxar, or Chapra.

However, due to certain practical difficulties, the proposed

location of the unit was subsequently changed to Nawada, which

was approved by the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB) in

its meeting held on 26.03.2012 from the date of power purchase

agreement.

11. Thereafter, the proposal of the petitioner company

for establishment of the solar power generation unit at Nawada

was approved by the State Cabinet on 02.07.2013 and the said

approval was duly communicated to the petitioner company vide

Letter No. 1286, dated 11.07.2013.

12. For the purpose of implementation of the project, the

petitioner applied for a term loan, amounting to Rs. 49.92 crores,

from the State Bank of India for its 10 MW power generation

project at Nawada, and the Bank sanctioned the term loan vide

Sanction Letter No. BR/RM-2/2016-17/466, dated 07.02.2017.

The petitioner company commenced its commercial production Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

with effect from 30.03.2017 and obtained the commissioning

certificate vide Letter No. 990, dated 14.07.2017 (Annexure-10).

13. After commencement of commercial production, the

petitioner company applied for and was granted incentive under

the 2011 Policy, and the Department of Industries issued sanction

order, bearing Memo No. 1503, dated 16.10.2017, sanctioning

capital subsidy of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner.

14. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide application, dated

14.09.2018, applied before the General Manager, District

Industries Centre, Nawada, seeking grant of interest subsidy at the

rate of 2 per cent on the term loan availed by it, in terms of the

2014 Amendment Policy.

15. Pursuant to the said application, the General

Manager, District Industries Centre, Nawada, conducted site

inspections of the industrial unit of the petitioner on 16.11.2018

and 22.11.2018, and found the unit to be functional and operational

and recommended for grant of interest subsidy to the Department

of Industries vide Letter No. 186, dated 28.11.2018.

16. Despite the aforesaid recommendation, no decision

was taken by the respondents on the petitioner's claim for interest

subsidy, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing

CWJC No. 5932 of 2020.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

17. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court, vide

order, dated 12.07.2021, with a direction to the respondents to

consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner.

18. The petitioner communicated the aforesaid order,

dated 12.07.2021, to the respondents by way of representations,

dated 16.07.2021 and 14.03.2022; however, when the respondents

failed to comply with the directions of this Court within the

stipulated reasonable time, the petitioner was constrained to file

contempt petition, bearing MJC No. 1188 of 2022, and this Court,

vide order, dated 31.08.2022, directed the respondents to comply

with the earlier order passed in CWJC No. 5932 of 2020.

19. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned

order, vide Memo No. SIPB/906 dated 12.09.2022.

BRIEF FACTS OF CWJC No. 16335 OF 2022

20. The facts of CWJC No. 16335 of 2022 is similar to

that of CWJC No. 16164 of 2025.

21. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, duly

incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, on

02.03.2009, bearing Corporate Identity Number

U72900WB2009PTC133317, and having its registered office at

Kolkata.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

22. The petitioner company established 3 MW solar

power generation unit at Nawada by availing a term loan of Rs.

16.50 crores from the State Bank of India.

23. The proposal of the petitioner company for

establishment of the solar power generation unit at Nawada was

approved by the SIPB from the date of power purchase agreement,

in its meeting, dated 24.05.2013.

24. The petitioner entered into the Power Purchase

Agreement with BSPHCL on 14.09.2016. The petitioner submitted

the proposal for extension of the date of the commercial

production, which was taken up by the SIPB and approved it in the

meeting held on 13.01.2017, which was communicated to the

petitioner, vide letter no.132 dated 03.02.2017.

25. The petitioner, vide application, dated 14.09.2018,

applied before the General Manager, District Industries Centre,

Nawada, seeking grant of interest subsidy at the rate of 2 per cent

on the term loan availed by it, in terms of the 2014 Amendment

Policy.

26. Pursuant to the said application, the General

Manager, District Industries Centre, Nawada, conducted site

inspections of the industrial unit of the petitioner on 16.11.2018

and 22.11.2018, and found the unit to be functional and operational Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

and recommended for grant of interest subsidy to the Department

of Industries vide Letter No. 185, dated 28.11.2018.

27. Despite the aforesaid recommendation, no decision

was taken by the respondents on the petitioner's claim for interest

subsidy, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by filing

CWJC No. 3578 of 2020.

28. A Division bench of this Court disposed of vide order

dated 01.07.2022 with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the

respondent, who shall dispose the representation within 4 weeks.

The petitioner filed representation, vide its letter dated 13.07.2022

before the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, but the

respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned

order, bearing Memo No. SIPB/1114, dated 26.09.2022.

Submission on behalf of the petitioners

29. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned Counsel for

petitioners, in both the cases, argued that the Government of Bihar

came out with the 2011 policy, where it had promised various

incentives for potential promoters to invest in the State of Bihar

and to set up industries and such industrial units will be entitled for

incentives under the Policy. After mid-term scrutiny of the 2011

policy, 2014 Amendment Policy was introduced, by which certain

amendments were incorporated in the 2011 Policy. Clause 8 of the Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

2014 Amendment Policy made provisions for insertion of sub-para

(vi) in para 4 of the 2011 Policy. The new provision provided

subsidy of 2 per cent on interest rate to be charged on term loan

from banks/financial institutions. The subsidy was made payable

maximum up to 7 years from the date of commercial production.

30. Learned Counsel further submits that in order to

carry out the objective made in the 2014 Amendment Policy, a

resolution, bearing memo no. 982, dated 11.06.2015, was issued

by the Department of Industries, Government of Bihar. The said

resolution made the 2014 Amendment Policy to be effective from

the date of notification, i.e. on 05.01.2015. He further submits that

the petitioners companies have fulfilled 5 years of continuous

commercial production and are still continuing production; thereby

satisfying the criteria made in the resolution.

31. It has next been submitted that the petitioners

companies entered into power purchase agreement on 14.09.2016

with the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited. Therefore, in

terms of the decision of the State Investment Promotion Board (in

short, 'the Board'), in its meeting, dated 24.05.2013, that the date of

execution of the power purchase agreement is the date of approval

by the Board. In the case of petitioners, the date of power purchase Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

agreement is after the date of date of enforcement of the 2014

Amendment Policy.

32. The petitioners companies started commercial

production from 30.03.2017 and 28.02.2017 respectively and the

respondent had issued commissioning certificates to this effect.

33. Learned Counsel further submits that since the date

of commencement of commercial production and the date of the

approval of the Board is after the enforcement of the 2014

Amendment Policy, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the

grant of interest subsidy.

34. It has next been submitted that in an identical

situation, when the incentive was denied, the matter came before

this Court, in the case of Suprabhat Steels v. State of Bihar,

reported in (1995) 2 PLJR 536, wherein the Division Bench of

this Court held that the terms and conditions of the policy

document cannot be changed and it was also held that the Principle

of Promissory Estoppel will apply with full force. The State of

Bihar preferred Special Leave Petition against this decision before

the Supreme Court, in the case of State of Bihar v. Suprabhat

Steels Ltd., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 31, where the Supreme

Court affirmed the view taken by this Court and held that the State, Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

even in exercise of Statutory power, cannot deny the benefit under

the Industrial Policy available to an industrial unit.

35. Learned Counsel relies on a Division Bench decision

of this Court, in the case of M/s Sunny Stars Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

State of Bihar, reported in 2020 (2) PLJR 327, dated 29.07.2019,

wherein the Division Bench, while interpreting the 2011 Policy,

held that it is exhaustive in itself and contains all requirement

while no dependence on any other document and also that the

denial of the benefit under the 2011 Policy on the ground of non-

approval by the Chief Minister was held to be bad.

36. Accordingly, the submission is that after reading the

2011 Policy as well as 2014 Amendment Policy, approval of the

Board was granted with a view to check or examine as to whether

the industrial unit be given the benefit of policy or not. He further

submits that the approval letters/permission letters issued by the

Department categorically provides that incentive shall be

considered separately as per the policy.

37. Thus, it is clear that the grant of the subsidy

promised by the 2014 Amendment Policy cannot be changed on

the ground that the petitioners do not have the board's approval

post the date of enforcement of the 2014 Amendment Policy on

05.01.2015 and the contention of the respondents in the counter Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

affidavit that there was no financial assessment and consideration

of the project of the petitioners for grant of interest subsidy as

approval of the Board was granted prior to the date of amendment

is completely misconceived and arbitrary.

Submission on behalf of the respondents

38. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents argued

that the 2014 Amendment Policy was introduced, vide letter no.11,

dated 05.01.2015. The nature of amendment is prospective and the

project entitled for the interest subsidy was required to get Board's

recommendation after the amendment in the 2011 Policy.

39. It has further been submitted that in case there is no

financial assessment and consideration of the project for grant of

interest subsidy and no assessment as is the duration of interest

subsidy, which can be done, only for the projects/units eligible for

interest subsidy, i.e. whose applications are received post

05.01.2015 and only those projects are to be appraised and

considered by the Board followed by approval of competent

authority. In the present case, the recommendation was done prior

the enforcement of the 2014 Amendment Policy, i.e. in the year 2013

and that too, without any assurance that any subsidy would be

automatically paid to the petitioners.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

40. Learned Counsel next submits that the Board's

approval and Power Purchase Agreement with Bihar State Power

Holding Company Limited was done on 26.03.2012/27.02.2013 and

26.05.2011/17.09.2012 respectively. He submits that as per the

policy for performance of new and Renewable Energy Sources,

2011, financial closure of every renewable project must be

completed within eight months from the date of Board's approval.

Consideration and conclusion

41. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties

concerned and have gone through the materials available on

record, including the 2011 Policy and the 2014 Amendment Policy.

42. The question, which requires consideration before

this Court, is whether the petitioners companies are entitled for

grant of 2 per cent interest subsidy under the 2011 Policy, as

amended by the 2014 Amendment Policy.

43. The amendment in the 2011 Policy was done after

mid-term scrutiny for acceleration in the industrial development

within the State of Bihar. The 2014 Amendment Policy was

implemented by the resolution, dated 05.01.2015. A resolution, dated

11.06.2015, has also been passed laying down the procedure for

grant of subsidy. The aforesaid resolution provides that the interest

subsidy of 2 per cent can be availed by an industrial unit for a Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

period of 7 years from the date of commencement of commercial

production and after availing the interest subsidy, the unit is

required to run at least for five years. Further condition is that the

project/unit must have been approved by Board/District Single

Window Clearance Committee.

44. The Board's approval was given to the units in

question and this decision was duly communicated to the

petitioners, informing that the Board has given consent for

considering the Board's approval from the date of power purchase

agreement with the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited,

in its meeting, held on 24.05.2013. The date of commencement of

commercial production of both the petitioners' units are 30.03.2017

and 28.02.2017 respectively and date of entering into power

purchase agreement by the petitioners companies and the Bihar

State Power Holding Company Limited is 14.09.2016.

45. The Government Resolution, dated 05.01.2015, lays

down the procedure and institutional mechanism for grant and

disbursement of 2 per cent interest subsidy introduced by the 2014

Amendment Policy. The resolution is required to be read in

conjunction with the 2011 Policy and the amendment thereto. Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

46. From the combined reading of the 2011 Policy, the

2014 Amendment Policy and the essential conditions for grant of 2

per cent interest subsidy, it emerged as follows:

(a) the unit must be an eligible industrial unit covered

under the 2011 Policy;

(b) the unit must have obtained requisite project approval,

either from the Board or through the District Single Window

Clearance mechanism, as applicable under the policy framework;

(c) the unit must have availed a term loan from a bank or

financial institution;

(d) the unit must have commenced commercial

production; and

(e) the application for subsidy must be submitted and

processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the

resolution, dated 05.01.2015.

47. The requirement of approval of the Board is thus a

threshold eligibility condition relating to establishment of the

industrial unit. The petitioners' units have already obtained approval

from the Board from the date of entry into power purchase

agreement. Admittedly, the power purchase agreement was entered

into on 14.09.2016, i.e. after coming into force of the 2014

Amendment Policy.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

48. The policy framework does not require a fresh or

separate approval of the Board merely because an additional

incentive was introduced subsequently by way of amendment. The

dates of commercial production of the units are also after coming

into force of the 2014 Amendment Policy.

49. It is also admitted that the units have availed the term

loan from the bank. Once an industrial unit stands validly approved

under the Policy and satisfied the post amendment conditions, viz.

commencement of commercial production, availing of term loan

and compliance with the prescribed procedure, the unit becomes

eligible for consideration of interest subsidy. To construe the

Board's approval requirement otherwise than the condition as

mentioned in the letter granting approval, shall be erroneous.

50. On the point of prospective and/or retrospective

application of the 2014 Amendment Act, it is relevant to quote

paragraphs 189 and 190 of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the

case of M. Rajendran and others v. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins

India Pvt. Ltd. and Others, reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE

2036.

"189. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory Rule or a statutory Notification, may physically consist of words printed on papers but conceptually, it would be a great deal more than Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

ordinary prose. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation should be interpreted, the one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have retrospective operation and the idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities.

190. If legislation confers a benefit on some persons without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and such conferment appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant a retrospective effect."

51. The rejection of the claim of the petitioners on the

ground that the 2014 Amendment Policy/resolution applies

prospectively is not tenable in the facts of the case, particularly

when the petitioners' units fulfilled the criteria of Board's approval

as well as commencement of the commercial production, dates of

which are after coming into force of the 2014 Amendment Policy.

52. The respondents have erred in treating the dates of

Board's approval as the disqualifying factor when the condition of

approval itself was that the approval would be considered from the

date of power purchase agreement and the power purchase

agreement is subsequent to the coming into force of the 2014

Amendment Policy.

Patna High Court CWJC No.16164 of 2022 dt.09-02-2026

53. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that

the petitioners fulfilled all the criteria as mentioned in the

resolution, dated 11.06.2015 for applying the 2014 Amendment

Policy for grant of interest subsidy.

54. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds

that the petitioners have fulfilled eligibility conditions including

valid project approval and are entitled for grant of 2 per cent interest

subsidy on the amount of term loan from the date of

commencement of the commercial production, i.e. 30.03.2017 and

28.02.2017, respectively for a period of seven years.

55. Accordingly, the impugned orders, dated 12.09.2022

and 26.09.2022, are set aside. The respondents are directed to

calculate the amount of subsidy on interest as per the claim raised

by petitioners in their respective applications within a period of one

month from today and pay the said amount within a maximum

period of four months from today.

56. In the result, these writ applications are allowed.

57. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-

AFR/NAFR                        AFR
CAV DATE                     04-12-2025
Uploading Date               09-02-2026
Transmission Date               N/A