Rajasthan High Court
India Image vs State Of Raj And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:39498) on 18 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JP:39498]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3872/2005
India Image E-145, 146 Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur A
Registered Partnership Firm Through Its P, K-4, Keshav C-
Scheme, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary Of Department Of
Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. District Industries Center, Jaipur Through General
Manager, Directorate Of Industries, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Udyog Bhawan, Jaipur
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Jaipur Ii Collectorate, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh Sharma, Dy.GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Judgment
18/09/2024
1. This petition is filed seeking setting aside the communication
letter dated 07.08.2003 issued by General Manager, District
Industries Centre, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "General
Manager") directing deposit of the subsidy amount of
Rs.10,83,400/- (wrongly typed as Rs.10,03,400 in Annexure 7).
The recovery notice in the Land Revenue Act is also under
challenge.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner set up an unit of small
scale industry for manufacturing of Readymade Garments. The
unit was registered with District Industry Centre, Jaipur. The unit
[2024:RJ-JP:39498] (2 of 4) [CW-3872/2005]
was set up initially in Keshav Path, C Scheme, Jaipur. Later on,
petitioner purchased a plot in Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur and
set up a factory. On 19.01.1997, the petitioner made an
application for subsidy provided by the State Government under
the State Capital Subsidy Scheme for New Industries 1990
(hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme'). The petitioner was
sanctioned an amount of Rs.10,83,400/- in the meeting of the
District Level Committee held on 29.09.1997 and the subsidy was
disbursed. The petitioner received letter dated 11.03.1999 from
General Manager stating that as per the Auditors the subsidy was
wrongly paid to the petitioner and same should be refunded along
with interest. The objection of the audit was that subsidy could
have been granted only to existing factory whereas the petitioner
has shifted the factory from C Scheme to Sitapura Industrial Area.
The petitioner responded stating that the old machinery was
having worth of Rs.80,000/- was shifted to the new factory
premises and petitioner had invested Rs.52,00,000/-in the new
machinery. The case set up was that the Note (i) of Clause (iv)(c)
(3) of the Scheme was not applicable in the facts of the present
case.
3. After almost three years, the communication letter dated
07.08.2003 was addressed to the petitioner directing that as per
the Auditors the subsidy amount is recoverable and the amount be
deposited within three months and on failure to do so, the
recovery proceedings shall be initiated under the Land Revenue
Act. Notice dated 25.04.2005 for recovery under land revenue was
issued, hence the present petition.
[2024:RJ-JP:39498] (3 of 4) [CW-3872/2005]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery
proceedings have been initiated only on the basis of audit
objection. There is no order passed recalling the subsidy.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that a show cause
notice was given prior to issuance of the communication and
subsidy was wrongly granted in violation of the provisions of the
scheme.
6. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for recovery
of the subsidy amount and the sole basis was the audit objection.
The petitioner responded to the show cause notice giving the
factual possession and that the subsidy was granted as per the
scheme. Neither response of the petitioner was considered nor an
order for recalling of subsidies was passed by the respondents.
7. Communication dated 07.08.2003 was addressed to the
petitioner to deposit the subsidy amount within three days,
otherwise, the recovery would be made under the provisions of
the Land Revenue Act. The communication dated 07.08.2003
clearly indicates that the recovery was being made for the reason
that as per the Auditors, the subsidy could not have been granted.
9. It is a settled law that a Quasi Judicial Officer has to pass a
reasoned order. In the case in hand, no order has been passed by
the General Manager in pursuance to the show cause notice issued
and directly the recovery proceedings were initiated.
10. The impugned notice dated 25.04.2005 initiated recovery
proceedings under the Land Revenue Act is quashed and matter is
remitted to General Manager to proceed in pursuance to the show
cause notice dated 07.08.2003 in accordance with law. In order to
[2024:RJ-JP:39498] (4 of 4) [CW-3872/2005]
avoid further delay, let the petitioner through the representative
appear in the office of General Manager on 17.10.2024 at 11 PM.
11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Chandan/17
Whether Reportable: Yes
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
