Remanded

Jericho Detergent Pvt. Limited and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Sept 2022WP(C)/2033/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a transport subsidy claim made under the Transport Subsidy Scheme 1971. The committee had rejected the claim allegedly due to late submission. The High Court held this ground was not raised in earlier proceedings and ordered remand. This is a financial/dispute case involving an industrial company.

What did the court decide?

The order of the State Level Committee dated 03.04.2013 standing rejected and the writ petition allowed in the limited manner indicated the matter being remanded back to the State Level Committee for

Jericho Detergent Pvt. Limited and Anr. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010008572014

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2033/2014

¶5

JERICHO DETERGENT PVT. LIMITED and ANR.

¶6

A COMPANY DULY REGD. UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REG. OFFICE AT BYE LANE NO.3, TARUN NAGAR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

2: BEEJEET PARAKASH

¶8

DIRECTOR OF JERICHO DETERGENT PVT. LTD. RESIDING AT H/NO.5 GAUTAM PATH BYE LANE NO.1 WIRELESS BELTOLA P.S. DISPUR GHY-0

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-11

¶11

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GHY-6

¶13

3:THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GHY-6

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

4:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE TRANSPORT SUBSIDY SCHEME 1971 BY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPTT. BEING ITS CHAIRMAN DISPUR GHY-6

¶17

5:THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21

¶18

6:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. NEDFI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BASUNDHARA ENCLAVE B.K. KAKOTI ROAD ULUBARI GHY-

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R R KAUSHIK

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K K PARASARr-1

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 06-09-2022

¶24

Heard Mr. K Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C K S Baruah, learned CGC for the respondent no. 1 being the Union of India through the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of Industrial Policy and Promotion Department and Mr. A Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 being the authorities under the Industries and Commerce Department under the Government of Assam.

¶25

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, we are not required to hear the respondent no. 6 NEDFI.

¶26

The petitioner claims for transport subsidy under the Transport Subsidy Scheme 1971

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

by taking the stand that for the period 01.07.2005 to 30.09.2005; 01.10.2005 to 31.12.2005; 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2006, the petitioner had been paid the transport subsidy but was not paid for the period of 01.04.2005 to 30.06.2005. Being aggrieved, WP(C) No. 2206/2009 was instituted which was given a final consideration by the order dated 22.02.2013, the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted as below:

¶29

“In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the State Govt. representing by Mr. N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel to take necessary action in the matter i.e. to say to examine the claim of the petitioner for transport subsidy for the aforesaid period. For the purpose, the matter shall be placed before the State Level Committee for examination and necessary order.

¶30

Let the entire exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 3 (three) months. Depending upon the examination of the case of the petitioner by the authorities, the follow up action will be taken by the respondents.”

¶31

A reading of the direction of this Court contained in the order dated 22.02.2013 makes it discernable that there was direction to the State Level Committee to examine the claim of the petitioner and to pass a necessary order thereon. In response thereof, the State Level Committee by the minutes of its meeting dated 03.04.2013 while examining the claim of the petitioner provided that the claim of the petitioner was time barred on the date of submission and therefore, it stood rejected.

¶32

We have noticed that the claim of the petitioner stood rejected not on the merit of the claim but on the ground of late submission. When the earlier writ petition being WP(C) No. 2206/2009 was heard on 22.02.2013, the respondents in the Industries and Commerce Department had not taken the stand that the claim of the petitioner is timed barred and in fact the order dated 22.02.2013 also reflects that it was not taken. If the said stand of delayed submission was not taken in the earlier proceeding, by the principles of constructive res-judicata, the said stand now cannot be taken in a subsequent proceeding, including that of the proceeding before the State Level Committee.

¶33

Accordingly, the rejection of the State Level Committee on the ground of late submission is unacceptable in law and therefore, the rejection by the minutes dated 03.04.2013 of the State Level Committee stands interfered and the matter stands remanded back to the State Level Committee for a fresh consideration on the merit of the claim of the

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

petitioner as may be admissible under the law. The consequential speaking order dated 29.04.2013 also accordingly stands interfered and shall now be subject to any further order that the State Level Committee may pass upon a fresh consideration on the claim of the petitioner.

¶36

As agreed, the requirement be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶37

We are clarifying that we are not observing anything on the merit of the claim of the petitioner and it is the State Level Committee to take its own decision on the facts and circumstance as well as the law applicable to the claim of the petitioner.

¶38

Writ petition stands allowed in the limited manner as indicated above.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Jericho Detergent Pvt. Limited and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jericho Detergent Pvt. Limited and Anr. v. the Union of India and 5 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

Madhav Kakoty Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Sanchari Urang @ Somari Urang and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sanchari Urang @ Somari Urang and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sunita Agarwal Vs the Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Nirmala Didwania Vs the Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Sweta Didwania Vs the Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.