M/S Riflex Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Unit V) v. The Lt.Governor And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH WPA/327/2024 M/S RIFLEX INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

(UNIT V) AND ANOTHER ... PETITIONERS VS.

THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the Petitioners : Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Advocate Ms. S. Bhawani For the Respondent : Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr. Adv Mr. Rakesh Kumar Hearing concluded on : August 04, 2025 Judgment delivered on : August 07, 2025 SUVRA GHOSH, J.

1.

The petitioners have assailed the order dated April 08, 2024 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands dismissing the petitioners' claim for subsidy. 2.

The first petitioner is a private limited company set up for agrobased (value-added) coconut project and the second petitioner is the Director of the company. The petitioners were allotted a space by the respondents for setting up of a unit for agro-based (value-added) coconut project on certain terms and conditions and permission was accorded for construction of the project. The Andaman and Nicobar

Administration issued a notification on October 25, 2017 introducing a scheme called "Andaman and Nicobar Islands Infrastructure Subsidy for Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, 2017". The scheme came into effect from the date of publication of the notification and remained in operation till March 31, 2020. The scheme was available to all the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (for short, the MSME), which were commissioned and commenced their commercial production on or after April 01, 2017 till March 31, 2020. Clause 5(v) of the scheme stated that no claim of subsidy more than one year old from the date of commencement of commercial production /substantial expansion would be entertained, meaning thereby, that though the scheme expired on March 31, 2020 claim of subsidy would be entertained till March 31, 2021.

3.

The petitioners' case is that they were unable to start commercial production within March 31, 2020 due to national lockdown declared due to the pandemic from March 19, 2020 to May 25, 2020. As soon as the lockdown was lifted and flights to the islands became operational, the petitioners commenced commercial production on June 04, 2020 and applied for subsidy on October 16, 2020, that is, well within the stipulated period of time. The petitioners' prayer was rejected by the authority by an order dated August 06, 2021 on the ground that the scheme had expired on March 31, 2020 and the unit came to existence on June 04, 2020, that is, much after expiry of the scheme. Being aggrieved by the said

order, the petitioners approached this Court in a writ petition and by an order passed on August 18, 2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by the authority on August 06, 2021 and directed the authority to consider the application filed by the petitioners for subsidy under the scheme subject to the fact that the concerned scheme was still in existence.

4.

The petitioners assailed the portion of the said order "subject to the fact that the concerned scheme is still in existence" before an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. By judgment delivered on September 28, 2022, the Hon'ble Division Bench modified the order of the learned Single Bench to the extent that the first respondent in the appeal would consider the application for subsidy in the light of the observation made in the judgment and take a decision whether by extending the time period fixed under the said scheme, benefit could be given to the appellant. The petitioners reverted to the authority and by an order passed on July 14, 2023, the respondent authorities again turned down the application filed by the petitioners and upheld the decision taken by the Scrutiny Committee, holding the claim of the petitioners to be inadmissible as per provisions of the scheme. 5.

The said order was assailed by the petitioners before this Court and by judgment delivered on September 09, 2023 this Court remanded the matter to the authorities with a direction to consider the application afresh after taking into consideration whether the

infrastructure prior to the stoppage of the flight operation was such which would in the event of lockdown not being declared, enable the petitioners to commence the commercial production on or before March 31, 2020. Pursuant to such direction, the issue was revisited by the authority who, by the impugned order dated April 08, 2024, reiterated its earlier decision.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is known to all that national lockdown was declared from March 19, 2020 to May 25, 2020 and all flights and other modes of communication remained suspended throughout the said period. Though the petitioners had applied for approval of building plan, consent to operate from the Pollution Control Committee, licence under Factories Act, licence under Food and Safety Standards Act and Fire clearance certificate in the meantime, such clearance could not be granted to them due to the lockdown. The petitioners were able to commence commercial operation within nine days of resumption of normalcy and could have commenced such operation within March 31, 2020 had there been no lockdown. No physical inspection was made by the respondent authorities to ascertain whether the petitioners were in a position to commence commercial operation within the stipulated time frame in a normal situation. The petitioners seek clearance of subsidy by setting aside the impugned order.

7.

Speaking for the respondent authorities, learned counsel has submitted that the authority has dealt with the application filed by the petitioners in detail in compliance of the order of this Court. This Court observed that the Lieutenant Governor had not taken into account the fact that since the petitioners commenced commercial activity within nine days from the date lockdown was lifted, they might have been in position to commence commercial production within the stipulated time frame, had there been no lockdown. This fact was directed to be considered by the authority in dealing with the issue afresh.

8.

Learned counsel submits that each point raised by the petitioners has been considered by the authority and an inference drawn thereto. The petitioners did not have the essential requisites for commencing production within the stipulated date. Moreover, the scheme is no longer in existence at present. Therefore the petitioners' prayer cannot be entertained by the authority. 9.

I have considered the rival submission of the parties and material on record.

10.

By the order impugned, the respondent authorities dealt with the reports obtained from various departments with regard to the requisite permission for commissioning and commencement of operation. It appears that approval of building plan was accorded on March 20, 2020, consent to operate from the Pollution Control

Committee was applied for on July 09, 2020 and granted on April 22, 2021. Licence under Factories Act was granted on February 10, 2021, licence under Food and Safety Standards Act was issued on June 18, 2022 and Fire clearance certificate was issued on February 23, 2021.

The cargo ships with regard to procurement, transportation, installation and commissioning of plant and machinery of the petitioners arrived at Port Blair earliest on February 20, 2020 and latest on March 27, 2020.

11.

Surprisingly, the petitioners commenced operation on June 04, 2020 pending issuance of consent of Pollution Control Committee, licence under Factories Act, licence under Food and Safety Standard Act and fire clearance certificate.

12.

They were not armed with the required permissions at the time of commencement of operation. Given the dates of applying for and receipt of such permissions, it is crystal clear that even without the lockdown being declared, the petitioners were not in a position to commence the commercial production on or before March 31, 2020. The scheme lost its validity with effect from March 31, 2020 and remained in force for a year thereafter only for the purpose of claiming subsidy. Since the petitioners could not have commenced commercial production within March 31, 2020 irrespective of declaration of lockdown, commencement of production on June 04,

2020 was far beyond the stipulated time period and could not have been regularized by the authority.

13.

Consequentially, the application for subsidy, though filed within a year from commencement of production, could not be considered. Though it is fact that the petitioners commenced commercial production within nine days from the date of lifting of the restriction, such commencement being in violation of the regulation as stated earlier, cannot enure to the advantage of the petitioners. 14.

Clause 13 of the scheme enumerates that power of relaxation of any clause under the programme shall lie with the Administrator, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. Needless to say that such power should be exercised reasonably and not in an arbitrary manner.

15.

In the case in hand, no application for relaxation of Clause 2 of the scheme was made by the petitioners before the authority at any point of time. Had the petitioners been in a position to commence operation after completion of the requisite procedures within March 31, 2020 in the event there was no lockdown, the question of relaxation of the said clause could have arisen. 16.

The order impugned deals with every aspect of the matter and is supported by sufficient reasons in arriving at the conclusion to dismiss the petitioners' claim. There is no illegality or irregularity in the said order which calls for interference by this Court.

17.

In the light of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

18.

Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA/327/2024 is dismissed.

19.

The order impugned dated April 08, 2024 passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands is affirmed. 20.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 21.

Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual formalities.

( SUVRA GHOSH, J. )