Full Text
LPA 1094/2011
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr Ruchir Mishra, Adv.
Through : Mr. Kaushal Yadav and Ms Mamta Rani, Adv. for R-1.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN O R D E R 11.01.2013
The grievance of the respondent/writ petitioner was that the release of subsidy to its unit manufacturing Single Super Phosphate (SSP) has been postponed till allegation in the legal proceedings pending against them in terms of an order dated 28.09.2001, issued by Ministry of Fertilizers and
Chemicals.
The learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 07.092010 noted that the legal proceedings which had been initiated against writ petitioner
No. 1/respondent No.1 Brij Fertilizers (P) Ltd. and which had culminated in filing of a charge sheet on 12.12.2002 had resulted in discharge of the
2013:DHC:206-DB Managing Director and the CEO of petitioner No.1. This assertion of respondent No. 1 was not disputed by the appellant. The learned Single
Judge directed the appellant to process the case of respondent No.1 for release of subsidy within four weeks. He further directed that after ascertaining the amount of subsidy owed to respondent No.1, the appellant would release the said amount together with any interest that respondent NO. 1 may be entitled to in terms of the revised scheme as well as the provisions of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act,
JUDGMENT
2006. The said order has been impugned in this appeal. It is an admitted position before us that the amount of subsidy has since been paid by the appellant Union of India to respondent No. 1 in terms of the order dated 07.09.2010, after the said order came to be accepted by it. The only issue between the parties is with respect to payment of interest on the amount of subsidy for the period it was withheld by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant states that no subsidy to the respondent is payable under the provisions of MSMED Act. This, however, is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The impugned order envisages payment of interest to the respondent No.1 only if it is found entitled to the same under the provisions of MSMED Act. The question as to whether the respondent No. 1 is entitled to interest under the provisions of MSMED Act or not has been left to the appellant to decide. It is for the appellant to take an appropriate decision on the question of interest, in the light of the provisions of MSMED Act and pay the same in case it comes to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to such interest under the provisions of the said Act. If respondent No.1 feels aggrieved from the decision which the appellant would take on the question of payment of interest in terms of the order dated 07.09.2010, it would be open to it to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to it in law. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, J JANUARY 11, 2013 bg