Dismissed

The Union of India and 2 Ors. v. Bhabani Print and Publications and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2022Review.Pet./16/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the Union of India seeking to recall a 2018 judgment concerning the Central Capital Investment Subsidy. The Court held that the controversy centered on the definition of 'New Industrial Unit' but found no error apparent on the face of the record and that substantive grounds touched the merits of the original petition.

What did the court decide?

Review petition deemed devoid of merit and dismissed; judgment dated 06.04.2018 stands.

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Bhabani Print and… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010007402021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./16/2021

¶5

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.

¶6

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION NOW RENAMED AS DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY AND INTERNAL TRADE), UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI110011.

¶7

2: JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA

¶8

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION NOW RENAMED AS DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY AND INTERNAL TRADE) UDYOG BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110011.

¶9

3: UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA

¶10

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION NOW RENAMED AS DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION OF INDUSTRY AND INTERNAL TRADE) UDYOG BHAWAN NEW DELHI- 110011

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

BHABANI PRINT AND PUBLICATIONS AND 4 ORS.

¶13

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT BHABANI COMPLEX, HATISILA, PANIKHAITI, GUWAHATI-26, ASSAM AND REP. BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS SHRI BIBHAS DEV.

¶14

2:SHRI BIBHAS DEV

¶15

Page No.# 2/6

¶16

S/O- LATE ANANDA DEV R/O- 7 LACHIT LANE RAJGARH ROAD GUWAHATI- 781007.

¶17

3:THE GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE CENTRE BAMUNIMAIDAN

¶18

GUWAHATI- 781021.

¶19

4:THE COMMISSIONER

¶20

INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI- 781021.

¶21

5:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶22

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR

¶23

GUWAHATI- 06

¶24

Advocate for the Petitioner : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶25

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE

¶26

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶27

ORDER

¶28

16.03.2022

¶29

Heard Mr. R. K. Dev Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of

¶30

India, appearing for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel representing the OPs/writ petitioners.

¶31

By filing this review petition a prayer has been made by the Union of

¶32

Page No.# 3/6

¶33

India represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries and the other officials in the department to review/recall of the judgment and order dated 06.04.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.7893/2015.

¶34

Although a number of grounds have been taken in the review petition, yet, during the course of argument, Mr. Dev Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, has submitted in his usual fairness that he is only pressing ground No.c, which is quoted herein below for ready reference :-

¶35

“ c. For that absence of prohibition does not lead to a right under subsidy schemes. Therefore, absence of prohibition cannot be a basis of right under the subsidy schemes. It is essential that for establishing the right for Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme under the NEIIPP 2007, the claimant is bound to refer to the definition clauses under the NEIIPP 2007. Unless, an entity is specifically covered under the policy/scheme as entitled to subsidy, it is presumed excluded; and not vice-versa. It would be fallacious to assume that because there is no categorical exclusion, therefore it is a deemed inclusion. ”

¶36

According to Mr. Dev Choudhury, the definition of “New Industrial Unit”

¶37

has undergone a change with effect from 13.09.2007 but the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court as a result of which, an error apparent on the face of the record has accrued in the judgment. Mr. Dev Choudhury has further argued that the writ petitioner/OP had earlier availed the benefit of Central Capital Investment Subsidy in terms of the old definition of “New Industrial Unit” and thereafter, by shifting the unit to another place, it is seeking to avail the

¶38

Page No.# 4/6

¶39

same benefit once again, without disclosing the correct facts. On such ground the learned ASGI has sought recall/review of the judgment and order dated 06.04.2018 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.7893/2015 and a re-hearing of the writ petition.

¶40

Mr. Goswami appearing for the writ petitioners/OPs, on the other hand, has submitted that the notification dated 13.09.2007 was not only a part of the writ petition in the form of Annexure-2 but the same has also been taken due note of by this Court while rendering the judgment and order dated 06.04.2018. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioners that the OPs have failed to point out the correct facts is untenable in law. Mr. Goswami has further argued that even if the changed definition is considered, there would be no material difference in the outcome of the writ petition since the decision of this Court was rendered on merit after taking note of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

¶41

Since the controversy is centering around the definition of the New Industrial Unit, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the new and old definitions herein below. As per clauses 4(b) & (c) of the Notification dated 27.07.2017, the definition of Industrial Unit is as follows :-

¶42

“ (b) ‘New Industrial Unit’ means an industrial unit for the setting up of which effective steps were not taken prior to 1.4.2007.

¶43

(c) ‘Existing Industrial Unit’ means an industrial unit for the setting up of which effective steps were taken prior to 1.4.2007.”

¶44

However, as per the Notification dated 13.09.2007 the definition of “New Industrial Unit” and “Existing Industrial Unit” introduced with effect from

¶45

Page No.# 5/6

¶46

01.07.2007 was as follows :-

¶47

“ 4. Definitions :

¶48

(b) ‘New industrial unit’ means an industrial unit which commences commercial production on or after the first day of April, 2007 but not later than 31^st day of March, 2017.

¶49

(c) ‘Existing industrial unit’ means an industrial unit which commenced commercial production before 1-4-2007”.

¶50

The claim of the writ petitioner was with regard to “Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007” which claim was rejected by the State Level Committee in its 36^th Meeting held on 05.10.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition was filed. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case including the definitions of the “New Industrial Unit” and “Existing Industrial Unit” as appearing from the materials available on record, this Court had passed the judgment dated 06.04.2018 after dealing with the submissions of both the sides at length, on the merit of the case. Regardless of the definition that is applied in this case, I am of the view that the same would not have any material alteration in the outcome of the writ petition. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment or any other sufficient ground, which, in the opinion of this Court, would justify review of the judgment.

¶51

In so far as the other submissions of the learned ASGI is concerned, the same would touch upon the merit of the writ petition and therefore, cannot be gone into in this review petition.

¶52

In view of the above, I do not find any justifiable ground to review/recall

¶53

Page No.# 6/6

¶54

the judgment and order dated 06.04.2018. As such, this review petition is

¶55

deemed to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

TUC

¶58

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and 2 Ors. v. Bhabani Print and Publications and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and 2 Ors. v. Bhabani Print and Publications and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Md. Altab Uddin Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Imran Uddin Chowdhury Vs Anowara Khatun and 10 Ors.

Bitupan Konwar and 14 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Bhargav Bhuyan and Anr. Vs State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ajit Kumar Doley Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.