w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Ishwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. & Others v/s State of Assam & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- B. P. FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311MP1994PTC032994

Company & Directors' Information:- S P P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412DL2004PTC128666

Company & Directors' Information:- J S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15314OR1991PTC002964

Company & Directors' Information:- H R B FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15146WB1988PTC045281

Company & Directors' Information:- ISHWAR FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15314AS2002PTC006750

Company & Directors' Information:- V D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400DL2012PTC231717

Company & Directors' Information:- P R FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC030483

Company & Directors' Information:- S S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15310MH2003PTC142530

Company & Directors' Information:- B K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312OR1996PTC004541

Company & Directors' Information:- O H P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52205DL1999PTC100269

Company & Directors' Information:- K V FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15122DL2007PTC162739

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15431JK1982PTC000554

Company & Directors' Information:- K I C FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15316DL1979PTC009757

Company & Directors' Information:- R B FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15313DL2010PTC202753

Company & Directors' Information:- R K B FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490KL2013PTC033500

Company & Directors' Information:- S K G FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15419UP1991PTC013771

Company & Directors' Information:- B H FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15134DL1997PTC084273

Company & Directors' Information:- N S FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15412WB1992PTC055591

Company & Directors' Information:- H N FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15146UP1990PTC011540

Company & Directors' Information:- V K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412UP1988PTC010023

Company & Directors' Information:- B M FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15419WB1993PTC060386

Company & Directors' Information:- I K FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15412WB1991PTC051852

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15499AP1982PTC003547

Company & Directors' Information:- S Q P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15100MH2003PTC139217

Company & Directors' Information:- F S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311MH2000PTC126031

Company & Directors' Information:- Z K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400MH2010PTC209818

Company & Directors' Information:- M B S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01112WB2003PTC096375

Company & Directors' Information:- N D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15131DL2002PTC115754

Company & Directors' Information:- C K M FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1998PTC012358

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15316WB1985PTC038398

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U15412WB1990PTC049789

Company & Directors' Information:- ASSAM FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28129AS1969PTC001302

Company & Directors' Information:- J M D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15419DL1998PTC097578

Company & Directors' Information:- L K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15200TG2016PTC103411

Company & Directors' Information:- FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15431JK1966PTC000304

Company & Directors' Information:- R R FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490PN2015PTC154753

Company & Directors' Information:- A N FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400TG2013PTC091969

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15490DL2012PTC245851

Company & Directors' Information:- K G Y FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400KA1984PTC005909

Company & Directors' Information:- FOOD PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U15311HR1994PTC032356

Company & Directors' Information:- M K FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15209DL1979PTC009924

    WP (C) 4471 of 2012, 3883 of 2012 & 3686 of 2012

    Decided On, 05 October 2013

    At, High Court of Gauhati

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

    For the Petitioners: N. Saikia, P. Mahanta, A. Saikia, L. Borgohain, Advocates. For the Respondents: S. Chamaria, SC, Industries and Commerce Department.



Judgment Text

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

(1) Issue raised in all the three writ petitions being identical, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2) Question for consideration, broadly outlined, is whether availing of benefit by way of subsidy under one Central Government scheme would disentitle an industrial unit from availing similar benefit under another scheme even though the industrial unit is otherwise eligible for such benefit?

(3) To attempt an answer to the above question, facts of all the three cases may be briefly noticed. Since WP (C) No. 4471/2012 was argued as the lead case, facts of that case are narrated at the very outset.

(4) In this case, petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing wheat products. Government of India in the Ministry of Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) issued notification dated 01-06-1998 notifying framing of a scheme of Central grant or subsidy for industrial units in the North Eastern Region comprising the States of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura with a view to accelerating industrial development in the region. The scheme is called Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1997. Applic-ability and eligibility criteria are laid down in the said scheme. The scheme provides that eligible industrial units shall be entitled to Central Capital Investment Subsidy (CCIS) @ 15% of their investment in respect of new units or additional investment in respect of substantial expansion in plant and machinery subject to a maximum ceiling of Rs. 30,00,000/ -.

(5) Petitioner applied for registration under the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1997 (1997 Scheme). General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia informed the petitioner vide letter dated 12. 07. 2005 that it was registered under the 1997 scheme. Petitioner was requested to submit its claim in prescribed form. Accordingly, petitioner submitted its claim in standard form furnishing all necessary details as per requirement of notification dated 01. 06. 1998. General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre thereafter forwarded the claim of the petitioner to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Assam to be placed before the State Level Committee (SLC). It was stated that case of the petitioner was duly enquired into by the concerned manager and as per enquiry report, admissible amount of investment in plant and machinery of the petitioner comes to Rs. 96,61,706/- and on the aforesaid basis, 15% of CCIS recommended to the petitioner worked out to Rs. 14,79,256/ -.

(6) According to the petitioner, SLC meeting held on 04. 12. 2007 had approved the claim of the petitioner to 15% CCIS amounting to Rs. 14,79,256/ -. However, the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Assam vide letter dated 16. 12. 2008 informed the Managing Director, North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited and the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia with a copy marked to the petitioner that the SLC in its meeting held on 22. 08. 2008 had observed that as the incentives under SPINE includes incentive on plant and machinery, incentive should not be granted on the same component more than once. Accordingly, SLC cancelled the 15% CCIS claim of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 14,79,256/- which was approved by the SLC in its earlier meeting held on 04. 12. 2007.

(7) At this stage, it may be useful to note that a scheme was introduced to provide for a special package for promotion of industries in the North Eastern Region by the Ministry of DONER (Department of North Eastern Region). The scheme is called "scheme for Promotion of Industries in the North East" (SPINE). As per the said scheme, North Eastern Council will subsidise 25% of the project cost or Rs. 50,00,000/-, whichever is less. Various criteria have been laid down to avail such benefit, such as, cost of the plant and machinery of the project to be implemented should not exceed Rs. 500 lakhs with an accent on employment generation etc.

(8) According to the petitioner, there is no bar in availing benefits under both the schemes. As a matter of fact, in the meeting of the committee to monitor and evaluate ongoing projects under SPINE in the State of Assam held on 12. 08. 2009, matter relating to availing subsidy/grant from different sources/ Ministries such as SPINE under NEC, CCIS under the 1997 scheme from the Industry Department, Government of India etc. by the same industrial units came up for discussion. It was opined that since SPINE guidelines issued by NEC does not indicate that an industrial unit cannot avail other grants and subsidy from other sources, the matter was closed as irrelevant.

(9) It is the case of the petitioner that the 1997 scheme and SPINE are not mutually exclusive and availing benefit under one scheme does not disentitle or debar an industrial unit from availing benefit under the other scheme, if it is otherwise eligible. A number of industrial units in the North East have availed benefit under both the schemes. Petitioner has furnished a list of 28 such industrial units to buttress his claim. Petitioner has further stated that a similarly placed industrial unit like the petitioner viz; M/s Jagunbari Tea Company had approached this Court by filing WP (C) No. 6755/2010. This Court by the judgment and order dated 08. 06. 2012 allowed the writ petition holding that refusal of the respondents to release subsidy/grant under the 1997 scheme on the ground that petitioner had already availed benefit under SPINE does not have any basis. Accordingly, respondents were directed to release the subsidy amount under the 1997 scheme.

(10) In such circumstances, petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of SLC decision dated 22. 08. 2008 as communicated vide letter dated 16. 12. 2008 and for a direction to the respondents to release the CCIS amount under the 1997 scheme.

(11) Petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing TMT bars and rods.

(12) Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) introduced a scheme called Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 for industrial units in the North Eastern Region comprising the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura with a view to accelerating industrial development in the North Eastern Region. As per the Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 (2007 Scheme), all eligible industrial units located anywhere in the North Eastern Region shall be given Central Capital Investment Subsidy (CCIS) @ 30% of their investment in plant and machinery or additional investment in plant and machinery. The limit for automatic approval of subsidy at this rate would be Rs. 1. 5 crore. For grant of CCIS higher than Rs. 1. 5 crores but upto a maximum of Rs. 30 crores, there shall be an Empowered Committee. Proposals which are eligible for a subsidy higher than Rs. 30 crores will be placed by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion before the Union Cabinet for its consideration and approval. North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited (NEDFI), Guwahati shall be the designated nodal agency for disbursement of CCIS under the 2007 scheme on the basis of the recommendation of State Level Committee (SLC), Empowered Committee and the Union Cabinet as the case may be. The 2007 scheme was framed in pursuance to the North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 and was notified on 27. 07. 2007.

(13) Petitioner applied for registration under the 2007 scheme submitting all necessary documents. General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia informed the petitioner vide letter dated 16-02-2008 that it was registered under the 2007 scheme. Petitioner was requested to submit its claim in the prescribed form and accordingly, petitioner submitted its claim. Thereafter, General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia issued certificate of registration dated 17. 11. 2008 to the petitioner. The said General Manager by his letter dated 24. 12. 2008 forwarded the 30% CCIS claim of the petitioner to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Assam to be placed before the SLC. It was stated that claim of the petitioner was duly enquired into by the concerned manager. Admissible amount of investment in plant and machinery comes to Rs. 4,96,33,335/- and 30% of CCIS recommended comes to Rs. 1,48,90,000/ -.

(14) A meeting of the SLC for grant of 30% and 15% CCIS respectively was held on 31. 03. 2010. In respect of the petitioner, the SLC considered its claim. Eligible investment was assessed at Rs. 3,81,38,493/- and 30% CCIS came to Rs. 1,14,41,547/-, which was approved. Petitioner was accordingly informed by the office of the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Assam that its 30% CCIS claim amounting to Rs. 1,14,41,547/- was approved by SLC. Petitioner was, therefore, requested to take the required follow up steps.

(15) However, petitioner was informed by the office of the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Assam vide letter dated 22/23. 06. 2011 that SLC in its meeting held on 11. 11. 2010 was of the view that dual benefits under SPINE or the Tea Board should not be given to those industrial units availing CCIS. If an industrial unit intends to avail CCIS incentive, it has to surrender its claim under SPINE or the Tea Board.

(16) Following the same, petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 26/27. 12. 2011 by the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Assam that since it had already availed a grant of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the North Eastern Council under the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region in the scheme of SPINE, which was not mentioned while the petitioner applied for 30% CCIS under the 2007 scheme, it amounted to suppression of fact. Petitioner was asked to submit its clarification in this regard.

(17) Petitioner submitted its reply contending that there is no clause either in the 2007 scheme or in SPINE restricting benefit to one scheme only. In such circumstances, petitioner contended that question of suppressing any fact or furnishing false information did not arise.

(18) Petitioner has also the meeting of the committee to monitor and evaluate ongoing projects under SPINE in the State of Assam held on 12. 08. 2009 where the issue was considered but was closed as irrelevant as there were no indication anywhere that an industrial unit availing benefit under SPINE cannot avail grants and subsidy from other scheme.

(19) Petitioner has also relied upon the Single Bench decision of this Court dated 08. 06. 2012 passed in WP (C) No. 6755/2010 (M/s Jagunbari Tea Company Vs. State of Assam and Ors.) wherein this Court held that refusal to release subsidy/grant under the 1997 scheme on the ground that the industrial unit had already availed benefit under SPINE does not have any basis. Direction was accordingly issued by this Court to the respondents to release the subsidy amount under the 1997 scheme.

(20) Under such circumstances, petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the decision of SLC dated 11. 11. 2010 and consequential show-cause notice dated 26/27. 12. 2011 and for a direction to the respondents to release the CCIS amount under the 2007 scheme.

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3686/2012

(21) Petitioner in this case is similarly placed like the petitioner of WP (C) No. 3883/2012.

(22) Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of CTC tea and black tea. Petitioner's claim for CCIS under the 2007 scheme was approved by SLC in its meeting held on 31. 03. 2010, which was communicated to the petitioner by the office of the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Assam on 12. 04. 2010. But on the ground that petitioner had earlier availed incentive under the Tea Board, SLC in its meeting held on 11. 11. 2010 rejected the CCIS claim of the petitioner considering such claim as amounting to availing dual benefit.

(23) Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the decision dated 11. 11. 2010 and for a direction to the respondents to release the CCIS amount due to the petitioner under the 2007 scheme.

STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS

(24) Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit filed in WP (C) No. 4471/2012 on 01. 03. 2013 has stated that though initially CCIS claim of the petitioner was approved by the SLC, later on it was revealed during further scrutiny that petitioner had already availed grant under SPINE. SLC took the view that as the grants availed under SPINE includes incentives on investment in plant and machinery, incentives should not be granted on the same component more than once as per Rule 209 of General Financial Rules, 2005 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Accordingly, SLC decided to cancel the previous approval for grant of CCIS to the petitioner.

(25) Respondents have filed an additional affidavit in WP (C) No. 4471/2012 on 19. 09. 2013. Stand taken in the additional affidavit is that facilities provided through SPINE are not over and above the subsidy provided under the 1997 scheme. Industrial units desirous of availing CCIS have to certify that if has not availed any such benefits from any other institutions. Petitioner while claiming CCIS suppressed the material fact that it had availed benefit under the same head through SPINE. If double benefit under the same head is allowed, other entrepreneurs of the State would be affected. Benefits under the above schemes are intended to achieve certain significant objectives and cannot be allowed to become a source of income or profit making process. Industries and Commerce Department had issued notices to those industrial units which had availed double benefit under SPINE and 1997 scheme to refund the CCIS amount. In so far the judgment dated 08. 06. 2012 passed in WP (C) No. 6755/2012 is concerned, respondents have stated that during the hearing of the said case above facts could not be brought to the notice of the Court. Moreover, Department has preferred appeal against the said judgment.

(26) Similar affidavits have been filed by the respondents in the other two cases as well.

REJOINDER BY THE PETITIONERS

(27) In its rejoinder affidavit, petitioner in WP (C) No. 4471/2012 has stated that benefits under the CCIS scheme and SPINE scheme are not mutually exclusive. There is no clause in either of the schemes debarring an eligible industrial unit from availing benefit under both the schemes. Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 is not at all relevant for the present purpose.

(28) Petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the additional affidavit filed by the respondents. It is stated that claim of the petitioner for subsidy under SPINE and under the 1997 scheme were processed by the same authority i. e. the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia. After due verification, the said authority recommended release of subsidy under both the schemes, which was also approved by SLC. Therefore, there is nothing to hide or suppress receipt of subsidy under both the schemes. Question of suppression of fact and filing of false affidavit does not arise.

(29) Similar rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners in the other two cases.

SUBMISSIONS

(30) Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel, Industries and Commerce Department, Government of Assam.

(31) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1997 scheme or the 2007 scheme or the special incentive package of the Tea Board on the one hand and benefits under the SPINE on the other hand are not mutually exclusive. There is no bar on an eligible industrial unit to avail both the benefits, the overall objective of which is to facilitate industrialization in the North Eastern Region. Learned Counsel for the petitioner besides relying on the decision in M/s Jagunbari Tea Company, has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court dated 22. 06. 2012 passed in WP (C) No. 5361/2010 (M/s Excellent Dairy and Farming Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors.) to contend that the petitioners are entitled to CCIS. She contends that reliance placed by the respondents on Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 is totally misplaced as the said rule is in no way connected with the disbursement of subsidy under particular schemes. She has also pressed into service the doctrine of promissory estoppel to contend that the Government had made a promise to grant CCIS to eligible industrial units knowing it fully well that it would be acted upon, which was infact acted upon by the petitioners, thereby substantially altering their position. In such circumstances, Government cannot now resile from its declared position and deny benefit of CCIS to the petitioners to which they are otherwise entitled, she contends.

(32) Opposing the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel submits that if similar benefit is given to an eligible industrial unit under more than one scheme, it will amount to granting of dual benefits which is not the intention of any of the schemes. He submits that petitioners cannot base their case on a negative claim to contend that since dual benefits have been received by other industrial units, similar benefits should be extended to them as well. He has also placed reliance on Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 to submit that petitioners are not entitled to dual benefit.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

(33) Submissions made have been considered.

(34) Though learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued a number of points, the core issue in this case as has already been noticed in the initial part of the judgment is the entitlement of an eligible industrial unit to avail benefit of subsidy under one Central Government scheme when such an industrial unit has availed benefit under another scheme.

(35) In all the three cases, the question is entitlement of the petitioners to CCIS either under the 1997 Scheme or under the 2007 Scheme. It is not disputed that the petitioners are otherwise eligible to avail CCIS under the above schemes. CCIS has been denied to the petitioners on the ground that they had availed benefit under SPINE or under special incentive package of Tea Board.

(36) To grant CCIS benefit under the 1997 scheme or under the 2007 scheme to eligible industrial units is an outcome of policy decision taken by the Central Government at the appropriate level. The objection that the respondents have raised viz, an eligible industrial unit should not avail such benefit from more than one source, is really a matter of policy. This is a decision which has to be taken at the level of policy making. Respondents have not been able to show or place any material before the Court that it has been decided as a matter of policy that to avail the benefit of CCIS under the 1997 scheme or under the 2007 scheme, the concerned industrial unit should not avail any other benefit of similar nature either under SPINE or under the Tea Board or under any other Central Government scheme. This is a decision which, in the opinion of the Court, cannot be taken at the stage of execution.

(37) Reliance placed on Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 by the respondents appears to be wholly misplaced in as much as the said Rule relates to obtaining grants-in-aid from the Government. As per the said Rule, any institution or organization seeking grants-in-aid from the Government should certify that it has not obtained or applied for grants for the same purpose or activity from any other Ministry or Department of the Government of India or of the State Government. Rule 209 reads as under:-

"Rule 209. Principles and Procedure for award of Grants-in-aid:

(1) Any Institution or Organization seeking grants-in-aid from Government will be required to submit an application which includes all relevant information such as Articles of Association, bye-laws, audited statement of accounts, sources and pattern of income and expenditure etc. enabling the sanctioning authority to assess the suitability of the Institution or Organization seeking grant. The application should clearly spell out the need for seeking grant and should be submitted in such form as may be prescribed by the sanctioning authority. The Institution or Organization seeking grants-in-aid should also certify that it has not obtained or applied for grants for the same purpose or activity from any other Ministry or De

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

partment of the Government of India or State Government." (38) A careful reading of the said Rule would show that the said provision is applicable in the case of applying or obtaining grants-in-aid from the Government by any institution or organization. Grant of subsidy stands on a different footing altogether. It is given for a specific purpose or objective, e. g. , in the present batch of cases, it is granted to achieve the objective of accelerating industrial development in the North Eastern Region. (39) A Single Bench of this Court in M/s Jagunbari Tea Company also considered similar claim of CCIS under the 1997 scheme, which was refused to the petitioner of that case by the authority on the ground that it had availed benefit under SPINE. This Court clearly held that such refusal to grant CCIS on the ground that similar benefit has been availed of under SPINE does not have any basis. Hence, respondents were directed to release CCIS under the 1997 scheme to the petitioner of that case. (40) In M/s Excellent Dairy and Farming Private Limited, the question confronting the Court was entitlement of the petitioner of that case to receive benefit under a scheme prepared by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MFPI), which was denied on the ground that petitioner had availed benefit under SPINE. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 22-06-2012 held that refusal of the authorities to release the subsidy under MFPI scheme to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner had already availed benefit under the SPINE did not have any basis. Accordingly, direction was issued to release the subsidy under the MFPI scheme. (41) Learned Counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the above Single Bench decisions have either been set aside or stayed by the appellate Court. (42) In such circumstances and following the discussions made above, Court is of the view that refusal of the respondents to release the already approved CCIS amounts to the petitioners is not justified. Accordingly, respondents are directed to release the admissible CCIS amounts to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (43) Writ petitions are allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
O R