SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal and V.N. Khare, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 1988 with C. A. Nos. 13706 of 96 & 739, 1907 of 97. D/d. 12.01.1999.

State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Petitioner

Versus

M/s. Khemka Cement Pvt. Ltd; - Respondent

Constitution of India, 1950 Articles 226 and 136 State Govt, providing scheme for subsidy for purchase of Diesel Generating set - Scheme withdrawn from retrospective effect - D.G. set purchased before withdrawal of Scheme - Application for grant of subsidy filed after withdrawal of Scheme - Held that subsidy could not be refused as it could have been granted only after purchase and on the date of purchase no decision had been taken to with draw the scheme.

[Para 2]

ORDER

Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 1988

1. THe appellant had a scheme for giving subsidy for purchase of Diesel Generating set (for short D.G. Set). The subsidy could be upto the extent of 50% of the capital cost of D.G. Set subject to maximum of Rs. 2.50.

2. The scheme which was promulgated on 23rd of February, 1982 was withdrawn by the decision of the State Government which was taken on 25th of July, 1985. Retrospective effect was sought to be given to this decision and it was made applicable with effect from 1st of April, 1985.

3. The respondent, on 16th of December, 1985 applied for the grant of subsidy. Along with his application, a bill dated 6th April, 1985 evidencing the purchase of the D.G. Set was submitted. The appellant herein rejected the claim for subsidy on the ground that the D.G. Set had been purchased after the discontinuance of the scheme. Presumably this view was taken because the appellant considered that the scheme had been withdrawn w.e.f. 1st of April, 1985 and, therefore, purchase of the D.G. set on 6th of April, 1985 would not entitle the respondent to claim the subsidy.

4. The High Court, in writ petition, which had been filed by the respondent herein, came to the conclusion that the subsidy could not be withdrawn with retrospective effect and as the purchase had been made by the respondent prior to 25th of July, .1986, the respondent was entitled to the subsidy claimed by it.

5. In our view, the aforesaid conclusion of the High Court cannot be said to be incorrect or unreasonable. On the date when the set was purchased i.e. the 6th of April, 1985 the Government has not taken any decision to withdraw the subsidy. I has not been shown to us that the Rules required the prior intimation of the purchase of the D.G. Set. On the contrary according to Regulation 5{iv) when the claim is made for the subsidy, it has to be accompanied with bills, receipts of payments etc. This seems to indicate that an application for subsidy could be filed only after the purchase of the D.G. Set. The High court did not find any reason to dispute the date on which the D.G. Set was purchased which was 25th of April, 1985. This being so, the High Court in our opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the subsidy claimed by them. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 13706/96, 739, 1907/97

6. For the reasons stated in our above order i.e. in Civil Appeal No. 1041 of 1988, these appeals are dismissed.

.