State of Assam and 2 Ors v. M/S Emami Limited and 3 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010043042020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/85/2021o STATEoOFoASSAMoANDo2oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,o DEPARTMENToOFoINDUSTRIESoANDoCOMMERCE,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-781006,oASSAM 2:oTHEoCOMMISSIONERoOFoINDUSTRIESoANDoCOMMERCE oASSAM oUDYOGoBHAWAN oBAMUNIMAIDAN oGUWAHATI-781021 oASSAM 3:oTHEoDIRECTORoOFoINDUSTRIESoANDoCOMMERCEoCENTRE oKAMRUPoGUWAHATo VERSUSo M/SoEMAMIoLIMITEDoANDo3oORSo HAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoATo687,oANANDAPUR,oE.M.oBYPASS,o KOLKATA-700107,oANDoALSOoHAVINGoANoUNIToAToABHOYPUR,oPOo COLLEGEoNAGAR,oNORTHoGUWAHATI,oGUWAHATI,oASSAM 2:SH.oJASWANToSETHIA oGENERALoMANAGERo(COMMERCIAL) oM/SoEMAMIoLIMITED oR/OoNILGIRIoAPARTMENTS oHOUSEoNO.o104H oADABARIoTINIRALI oGUWAHATIoKAMRUP oASSAM 3:THEoUNIONoOFoINDIA oREP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoINDIA oMINISTRYoOFoINDUSTRIALoDEVELOPMENT Page No.# 2/3 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION NEW DELHI. 4:THE NORTH EAST INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM For the appellants : Mr. A. Kalita, Advocate For the respondents : Dr. Ashok Saraf, Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. P.K. Bora, Advocate For the respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, DSGI For respondent No.3 Mr. G. Das, Advocate For respondent No.4

– B E F O R E – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM 30-05-2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)

¶1This writ appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 4649/2013.

¶2The respondents herein approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition with the grievance that the State Level Committee of the Industries and Commerce Department has illegally refused to grant certain benefits to the respondents as per the policy, namely, North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "2007 Policy")

¶3The learned Single Judge, after dealing with the provisions of the 2007 Policy in detail, came to the conclusion that the State Level Committee was not justified Page No.# 3/3 in rejecting the claim of the respondents. After observing this, the learned Single Judge interfered with the resolution taken by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 23.09.2011 and 24.09.2011 and remanded back the matter to the State Level Committee to re-determine the quantum of central capital investment subsidy, which the respondents are entitled to in terms of the policy and the scheme.

¶4Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2019 is not liable to be interfered with as the same has been passed after taking into consideration relevant clauses of the 2007 Policy.

¶5Learned counsel for the appellant State has submitted that certain clauses of the policy, which had been amended at the relevant time, were not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge.

¶6We are of the view that the learned Single Judge, while remanding the matter to the State Level Committee, has given a specific direction to re-determine the case of the respondents in terms of the policy and the scheme, i.e. the policy and the scheme which were in force at the relevant time. Hence, the State Level Committee is required to re-determine the case of the respondents in terms of the policy and the scheme in vogue and in the light of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. With this observation, this intra-Court appeal is disposed of.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant