Allowed

M/s. Pakkar Leather Export Co. v. Government of India

Madras HC1 Apr 2021WP/19642/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order rejecting a subsidy application due to alleged delay in filing revised documents. The Court held the delay was not the petitioner's fault and directed the release of the balance subsidy within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and the first respondent is directed to release the balance subsidy amount within four weeks.

M/s. Pakkar Leather Export Co. Vs Government… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.04.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.NO.19642 OF 2018

¶6

AND

¶7

W.M.P.NOS.23075 & 23076 OF 2018

¶8

M/s.Pakkar Leather Export Co.,

¶9

A registered Partnership Firm, Represented by one of its Partner, Office No.8, 2^nd Floor,

¶10

New No.23, Old No.11, Vepery High Road, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. ... Petitioner

¶11

¶12

Government of India, Represented by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, (Leather Section), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.

¶13

The General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Government Schemes Cell, No.15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow – 226 001.

¶14

The General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Overseas Towers, No.756-L, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer:

¶17

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the files of the 1^st respondent namely the order File.No.09/284/2007-Leather dated 31.08.2017 rejecting the subsidy granted vide letter dated 11.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to release the balance subsidy granted vide letter dated 11.07.2011 amounting to Rs.27,82,867/-.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Jayesh Dolia

¶20

for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia For R1 : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganesh (SPC) For R2 & R3 : Mr.Shivakumar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the letter dated 31.08.2017 bearing Ref.No.9/284/2007 rejecting the request of the petitioner for payment of the balance subsidy of Rs.27,82,687/-.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted an approval for subsidy for an amount of Rs.37,10,489/-. This subsidy was granted to the petitioner during the 11^th plan, which was in force between 2007-2012. The 1^st installment of Rs.9,27,622/- was also paid to the petitioner on 28.02.2013 by which time the 12^th plan had come in to force and the guidelines were revised.

¶24

According to the 1^st respondent, the application of the petitioner was received by the office of the 1^st respondent belatedly and therefore the application of the petitioner cannot be processed. The facts are not in dispute as is evident from the typed set of documents filed by the petitioner and the counter filed on behalf of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent.

¶25

The revised application of the petitioner was routed through the office of the 3^rd respondent for being submitted to the 1^st respondent. The application of the petitioner under the revised guidelines was received by the office of the 3^rd respondent on 04.07.2014.

¶26

However, after the application was received, there was some delay in transmission of the application by the office of the 3^rd respondent to the 1^st respondent.

¶27

The application of the petitioner for partial disbursement of the balance subsidy of Rs.27,82,867/- has been rejected only on the ground that the application/claim was not filed in time on 10.07.2014. The impugned communication of the 1^st respondent reads as under:-

¶28

“I am directed to refer to this Department's letter of even no. dated 21.09.2016 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the Steering Committee in its 41^st meeting held on 16.08.2017 reviewed the status of disposal of grants approval under IDLS sub-scheme during 11^th Plan period

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

including the case of M/s.Pakkar Leather Export Co., and observed that the funds could not be disbursed as the claim was not lodged within the timeline, i.e. 10/07/2014, fixed by the Steering Committee in its 36^th meeting held on 20^th June 2014. Hence, the Committee decided to close the case.

¶31

The Steering Committee comprised of all stakeholders in the Leather, Footwear and Accessories Sector including Industry representatives viz Chairman & Vice-chairman, Council for Leather Export and Chairman, Council for Footwear Leather & Accessories.

¶32

No further representation shall be accepted/considered by the Department in respect of this case.”

¶33

That being the case, I find no merits in the reasons given in the impugned communication of the 1^st respondent that the claim was not lodged within the timeline. The 1^st respondent having granted part of the subsidy earlier cannot deny the same to the petitioner by citing the alleged delay for which the petitioner was not responsible. In any event, such delay was not fatal to lapse the subsidy already sanctioned to the petitioner under the earlier plan.

¶34

It is also no part of the duty of the 1^st respondent to arbitrarily frustrate legitimate subsidy given to an applicant like the petitioner merely because of non-receipt of the application in time from the office of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent.

¶35

Under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is hereby quashed. Consequently, the 1^st respondent is directed to release the balance subsidy amount to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

arb

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

¶44

The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, (Leather Section), Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 011.

¶45

The General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Government Schemes Cell, No.15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow – 226 001.

¶46

The General Manager,
Small Industries Development Bank of India,
Overseas Towers, No.756-L, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
+1cc to Mr.K.S.Jeyaganesh, Advocate, S.R.No.21677
W.P.No.19642 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.23075 & 23076 of 2018
AJB(CO)
CS/23/06/2021

¶47

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s. Pakkar Leather Export Co. v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Pakkar Leather Export Co. v. Government of India

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

K.Arunachalam Vs Dr. J.Radhakrishnan, I.A.S.

M/S. E.S. Mydeen & Co. Vs Customs & Central Excise

P.G.P. Educational and Welfare Vs the District Collector

Tvl.Super Fab Vs The Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

M/S.Trans Asia Corporation Vs the Chief Commissioner of

M/s.The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Vs The Additional Chief Secretary