1. Heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned AGP for the respondent authority.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:
"(a) Your Lordships will be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(b) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider eligible investment made by the petitioner upto 18 months from the date of production and to grant the benefit as per the Incentive Scheme 2001 for Economic Development of Kachchh District.
(c)............."
3. At the time of hearing of present petition learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the communication dated 4.10.2010 received by it from the Joint Industries Commissioner (Project). Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that even after the said communication dated 4.10.2010 the petitioner has not received any further reply / decision in connection with its application and that therefore appropriate directions to the respondent authority may be issued to take necessary and appropriate decision regarding petitioner's application seeking benefit in accordance with Government Policy.
4. In response to the petitioner's submission Mr. Shah, learned AGP has relied on the details mentioned in paragraph No.6 of the reply affidavit dated 2.2.2012. The said paragraph No.6 read thus:-
"6.
I respectfully say that the petitioner had been granted final eligibility certificate for the investment upto 31.12.2005. However, the petitioner is repeatedly asking the eligible certificate for the investment made under 01.01.2006. As per the report of team, the petitioner had made an investment of Rs.186.51 crores upto 31.12.2005 and out of which the team has considered the eligible investment of Rs.170.28 crores. The State Level Committee had decided to consider the investment made upto 31.12.2005 in all the cases which have started commercial production on or before 31.12.2005 and therefore now the State Level Committee cannot take different view in case of the petitioner."
5. Mr. Shah, learned AGP has also relied on the details mentioned in paragraph No.9 of the reply affidavit dated 2.2.2012 which read thus:-
"9.
I respectfully say that Industries and Mines Department received a proposal from Industries Commissioner, to consider investment made after 31.12.2005. Finance Department had turned down the said proposal. This decision is based on the ground that the industrial units which have started commercial production before 31.12.2005 are enjoying simultaneous benefits of excise exemption scheme of Government of India and sales tax exemption scheme of state government. The industries commissioner had again submitted the proposal on 3.10.2007 to Industries and Mines Department, which was examined by the Industries and Mines Department and Finance Department. The proposal will now be put up before High Power Committee (HPC) headed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. A policy level decision will be taken by HPC headed by Hon'ble Chief Minister, therefore, the application of the petitioner is premature and deserves to be rejected."
6. In light of the details mentioned in paragraph No.9 particularly the fact that Industries Commissioner has submitted proposal which is pending before the High Power Committee headed by the member of High Power Committee, necessary policy decision will be taken as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months.
7. In light of the said submission by learned AGP, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied with appropriate observation and direction to the authority to expeditiously take necessary decision.
8. Therefore, present petition is disposed of in light of the submissions made by the learned AGP that necessary policy decision will be taken as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months. The Commissioner may endeavour to take final decision and convey it to the petitioner preferably by 31.1.2013.
9. In that view of the matter the competent authority before whom the petitioner's application is pending may take necessary decision based on the policy decision on the application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
With the aforesaid clarification and observation the petition is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top