M/S Riflex Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Unit-V) And Another v. The Lieutenant Governor And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...
WPA/261/2021 M/s Riflex Industries Pvt. Ltd (Unit V) and another ... Petitioners Vs.
The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Respondents Mrs. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty ... for the respondents August 18, 2022 [SR] Item No.4 The petitioners pray for a direction on the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioners for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Infrastructure Subsidy for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, 2017. The petitioners also pray for setting aside the order dated 6th August, 2021 passed by the Director of Industries, Andaman and Nicobar Administration of Directorate of Industries.
From the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the Administration, it appears that the concerned Scheme was notified on 25th October, 2017. The Scheme was to come into effect on the date of the notification and was to remain in operation until 31st March, 2020. The Scheme was to be made available to all such micro, small and medium enterprises which commenced their commercial production on or after 1st April, 2017 till 31st March, 2020. Clause (v) of the Scheme further provides that no claim for
subsidy which is more than one year after the date of commencement of the commercial production shall be entertained.
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were unable to start commercial production within 31st March, 2020 by reason of the lockdown declared due to the pandemic from 19th March, 2020 to 25th May, 2020. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the skilled workers of the petitioners could only come to Port Blair and start work on and from 25th May, 2020 when the flights to the islands became operational. The petitioners thereafter commenced their commercial production on 3rd June, 2020 and applied for the subsidy on 16th October 2020.
The objection taken by learned counsel appearing for the Administration is that the petitioner do not have a right to claim the subsidy under the Scheme and that the Scheme is no longer in existence.
The second point of objection appears is disputed since counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that the Scheme continues to be in operation as on date.
Subject to the existence of the Scheme till date, this court is of the view that the grounds given by the petitioners for commencing of commercial production beyond the date specified in the Scheme is wholly acceptable since declaration of a lockdown by reason of the pandemic is known to all. The impugned order dated 6th August, 2021 ignores the relevant facts. The order simply rejects the application for the
petitioners on the ground that the Scheme expired on 31st March, 2020 and the unit came to existence after expiry of the scheme. This Court is hence of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the petitioners' case must be revisited by the respondent authorities.
WPA/261/2021 is accordingly disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to consider the application of the petitioners for the subsidy under the Scheme within a period of four weeks from date and to dispose of the same by way of a reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioners within an outer limit of six weeks from today. The direction is subject to the fact that the concerned Scheme is still in existence. The impugned order dated 6th August, 2021 is set aside.
(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)