Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Bakshi Industrial ... vs State Of Punjab And Ots on 12 September, 2022
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
216 CWP-7613-2017 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 12.09.2022.
M/s Bakshi Industrial Enterprises Ltd.
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Niharika Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking issuance of an
appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to
provide funds for onward disbursement of subsidy/investment incentive
sanctioned in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the subsidy
has since been released in favour of the petitioner on 22.01.2022, however,
he is entitled to release of interest for the delay attributable to the
respondents in release of the subsidy. He further places reliance on the
judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of CWP
No.15249 of 2019, titled as "M/s Dhingra Rice and General Mills Vs.
1 of 3
CWP-7613-2017 (O&M) -2-
State of Punjab and others, bearing CWP No.15249 of 2019, decided on
12.07.2022. The relevant extract of the same reads thus:-
"The issue with regard to interest is covered by the decision in
CWP No.10230 of 2011 titled 'M/s Thapar Textiles Pvt. Ltd. vs
State of Punjab and others' decided on 16.09.2014, CWP
No.35101 of 2019 titled 'M/s Patiala Enterprises vs State of
Punjab and others' decided on 09.03.2022, CWP No.19007 of
2002 titled 'M/s Balak Gases Oxygen Gas Plant and another vs
State of Punjab and others' decided on 20.05.2011 being lead
case in bunch of 44 cases. In CWP No.17028 of 2009 titled
'M/s Ferozshah Agro Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Punjab and others'
decided on 19.04.2010, even closed unit was held entitled to
subsidy inspite of the fact that it was not in a running condition
and stood closed on the date when the amount was to be
disbursed. Even the Division Bench of this Court upheld the
order of the learned Single Judge that the unit being not in
running condition at the time of disbursement cannot be a
ground to deny capital incentives as per industrial policy.
In view of aforesaid attending facts and circumstances
of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition
thereby entitling the petitioner to interest @ 6.5% per annum
from the date of filing of writ petition till the date on which
capital subsidy has been granted i.e. 11.07.2022. Needful be
done within a period of two months from today."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State could not
dispute the existence of the aforesaid order against the Department in the
aforesaid writ petition.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. The petitioner
is held entitled to interest @ 6.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
writ petition till the date on which the capital subsidy was released.
2 of 3
CWP-7613-2017 (O&M) -3-
The needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
September 12, 2022. JUDGE
raj arora
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
