M/S. River Valley Tea Company Private Limited and Anr v. Tea Board of India and 3 Ors

ORDER

29.08.2024

¶1Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mr. P. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners, while Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appears for all the respondents.

¶2The petitioner no.1 is a private Tea Company and the petitioner no.2 is one of the Directors of the Tea Company. It's basic grievance is that they have Page No.# 3/6 not been paid 30% subsidy, in terms of the Tea Development & Promotion Scheme under the XII Plan Period (hereinafter referred to as the XII Scheme). The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that they have been given the subsidy as per XI Plan Period (hereinafter referred to as the XI Scheme)and not as per the XII Scheme.

¶3The petitioners' counsel submits that the XII Scheme of the Tea Development & Promotion Scheme came into effect from 10.12.2014 instead of

01.04.2015. In terms of the unit cost of uprooting and replanting subsidy of tea bushes for the State of Assam, a subsidy amount of Rs.1,90,137/- per hectare was given to the planters, after uprooting and replanting of the tea bushes.

¶4The petitioners applied for grant of the 30% of the subsidy as per XI Scheme, for uprooting and replanting of tea bushes, vide letter dated

23.11.2012 in respect of Section 25(P) and Section 16 of the tea garden.

¶5The Tea Board of India, vide letter dated 12.12.2012, informed the petitioners that there was no objection certificate (NOC in short) to the petitioners commencing the uprooting of tea bushes in respect of Section 16 comprising of 18.43 hectares and Section 25(P) comprising of 16.26 hectares.

¶6The petitioners' counsel submits that uprooting of the tea bushes from Section 25(P) and Section 16, pursuant to the letter dated 12.12.2012, was completed on 30.12.2012 and 15.01.2013 respectively. Further, the replanting of the tea bushes in respect of Section 25(P) was completed on 30.04.2013, while Page No.# 4/6 replanting of tea bushes for Section 16 was completed on 10.04.2015.

¶7The petitioners' counsel submits that the time schedule for replanting of tea bushes is implied in Clause C(3) of the XII Scheme, which states that replacement planting is to be completed within 6 months from the issuance of the NOC.

¶8The petitioners' counsel submits that as the petitioners had completed the replanting of the tea bushes only after the XII Scheme came into effect on

10.12.2014, though it was way beyond the period provided under Clause C(3) of the XII Scheme, the petitioners would have to be given subsidy for uprooting and replanting of tea bushes in terms of the XII Scheme. He accordingly submits that a direction to that effect should be issued to the respondents.

¶9Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for all the respondents, on the other hand submits that the submission of the petitioners' counsel, read with the documents in the writ petition clearly show that the petitioners were to complete the replanting of the tea bushes within 6 months from the date of issuance of the NOC dated 12.12.2012, i.e. prior to 12.06.2013. As the petitioners did not complete replanting of the tea bushes prior to 12.06.2013, i.e. during the validity of the XI Scheme, the petitioners have no right to claim subsidy under the XII Scheme.

¶10I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Page No.# 5/6

¶11As can be seen from the documents on record, the petitioners were given No Objection Certificate to uproot and replant the tea bushes vide letter dated

12.12.2012 in respect of Section 16 and Section 25(P) of the tea garden.

¶12Clause C(3) of the XII Scheme states as follows : "Uprooting will have to be completed by 31st March of the financial year for which the application has been submitted. Replacement planting to be completed within 6 months from the issuance of NOC."

¶13The report made with respect to the uprooting and replanting of the tea bushes in respect of Section 25(P) and Section 16 of the petitioners tea garden, subsequent to the NOC dated 12.12.2012 given by the respondents, states as follows : "Area for which subsidy is sought for Sl. No. Sec. No. Activity Area in HA Date of comm..

comp. Replantation Uprooted on Date of comm. Date of comp. 25(P) Uprooting

16.26

15.12.2012

30.12.2012

Replanting

10.03.2013

30.04.2013

Uprooting

18.43

15.03.2015

10.04.2015

31.12.2012

15.01.2013 "

¶14The 30% subsidy to be given as per the XI Scheme is @ Rs.89,650 per hectare, while subsidy is Rs.1,90,137/- per hectare in terms of the XII Scheme.

¶15The report with regard to Section 25(P) shows that uprooting and replanting of tea bushes was completed by 30.04.2013 during the validity of the XI Scheme. However, in respect of Section 16 of the petitioners tea garden, the Page No.# 6/6 uprooting of tea bushes had been completed on 15.01.2013 and in terms of Clause C(3) of the XII Scheme, the petitioners were to complete the replanting of the tea bushes by 31.03.2013 and at best by 12.06.2013. Even if this Court is to assume that the replanting was to be completed by the end of the next financial, i.e. 31.03.2014, the petitioner did not complete the replanting on time, as the replanting was completed only on 10.04.2015. The XII Scheme came into effect only from 10.12.2014. As the petitioners did not complete the replanting of the tea bushes in terms of Clause C(3) of the XII Scheme, there is nothing to show that the petitioners have any right to claim any subsidy in terms of the XII Scheme. Further, the petitioners have not annexed any other document to show that they have any right to be given subsidy as per the XII Scheme. Only because they completed the replanting of the tea bushes after the XII Scheme came into effect, does not give them any automatic right to claim subsidy under the XII Scheme. In any event, the reasoning of the petitioners for claiming the subsidy under the XII Scheme appears to be flawed. This is due to the fact that assuming the petitioners had completed their replanting after 20 years, would it be reasonable to expect the petitioners to be given subsidy for a subsequent scheme that may be made, only because the petitioners had not followed the time line fixed as per the earlier scheme. Consequently, this Court does not find any ground to exercise it's discretion in this writ petition.

¶16The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010207812016 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6359/2016o M/S.oRIVERoVALLEYoTEAoCOMPANYoPRIVATEoLIMITEDoandoANR.o HAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToTHANAoROAD,oP.O.oandoDIST.o TINSUKIA,oASAM-786125,oREP.oBYoITSoDIRECTOR,oSRIoMAHENDRAoKUMAR AGARWALLAoSONoOFoLT.oPARSHURAMoAGARWALLAoR/OoBISHMILE,oP.O.o CHABUAoDIST.oDIBRUGARH,oASSAM. 2:oSRIoMAHENDRAoKUMARoAGARWALLA oS/OoLT.oPARSHURAMoAGARWALLAoR/OoBISHMILE oP.O.oCHABUAoDIST.oDIBRUGARH oASSAMoEMPLOYEDoASoDIRECTOR oRIVERoVALLEYoTEAoCOMPANYoPVT.oLTDo VERSUSo TEAoBOARDoOFoINDIAoando3oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCHAIRMAN,oMINISTRY,oGOVT.oOFoINDIA,o14oB.T.M.oSARANIo BRABOURNEoROADoKOLKATA-o700001. 2:THEoDIRECTOR oTEAoDEVELOPMENT oTEAoBOARDoOFoINDIA o14 oB.T.M.oSARANIoBRABOURNEoROAD oKOLKATA-o700001. 3:THEoEXECUTIVEoDIRECTOR oTEAoBOARDoOFoINIDA oMINISTRYoOFoCOMMERCEoANDoINDUSTRY oGOVT.OFoINDIA oNORTH-EASToZONLoOFFICE o5THoando6THoFLOOR oHOUSEFEDoCOMPLEX Page No.# 2/6 CENTRAL BLOCK BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TEA DEVELOPMENT TEA BOARD OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH-EAST ZONAL OFFICE 5TH and 6TH FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T N SRINIVASAN, MRP BHARDWAJ,MR.M K CHOUDHURY,MR.N BARUAH,MR.A BARKATAKI,MS.A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S C KEYAL, MR. N J GOGOI (SC, TEA BOARD),,,,, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA