Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Petitioner had approached this Court earlier by means of writ petition no.442 of 2016, Shree Ram Cold Storage and Ice Factory vs. Union of India and others raising a grievance that his application for grant of subsidy is not being processed by the respondent authorities.
Before the High Court on behalf of the respondents an order passed by the Managing Director, National Horticulture Board, Industrial Area Gurgaon Haryana was produced which recorded that the concerned authorities have taken a decision to deny the facility of subsidy to the petitioner's unit. The writ petition was, therefore, disposed of vide order dated 8.1.2016 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision so taken before the appropriate forum.
The petitioner has now decided to file this petition for challenging the order made on his application for subsidy being provided. From the order impugned, we find that the proposal was submitted by the petitioner on 3.3.2008 for expansion of existing capacity of his cold storage by 3192 quintals with the addition of one chamber. The proposal was scrutinized by NABARD, UPRO, Regional Office, Lucknow and the project was sanctioned.
On the date the said project was submitted, the existing capacity of the petitioner was already in excess of 5000 MT and he had availed the benefit of subsidy upto that level. The U.P. Regional Office, therefore, vide order dated 3.4.2008 advised the financing bank that under the scheme applicable, the petitioner unit was not entitled to any further subsidy as he had already achieved the maximum capacity of 5000 MT. The financing bank was again advised vide letter dated 17.6.2011 regarding non eligibility of project for subsidy in response to the promoters letter dated 21.4.2011.
According to the petitioner, under the capital investment subsidy scheme, floated by Government of India in the matter of construction/ expansion/ modernization of cold storage and storages for horticulture produce, there is no restriction in the matter of the capacity of the cold storages and the only restriction is with regard to the amount of subsidy to be provided.
According to the petitioner, there has been misreading of scheme on the part of the officer. Petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maheshwari Cold Storage and Ice Factory vs. Union of India and others, decided on 3.1.2011.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Three clauses of the scheme are relevant to be examined by this Court.
(a) The scheme contemplates expansion, modernization and construction of new cold storages and storages for horticulture produce, the clause which provides for the restriction in the matter of capacity and the quantum of subsidy relevant for our purposes as on page 28 of the paper book reads as follows :-
"25% back-ended capital investment subsidy from National Horticulture Board shall be routed through NABARD/NCDC for opening Borrower-wise Subsidy Reserve Fund Account by lending commercial/ cooperative banks. The subsidy is restricted to Rs. 50.00 lakh and for North-Eastern States Rs 60.00 Lakh @ 33.33% per project. For projects having a capacity of more than 5000 MT. the amount of subsidy would be restricted to the maximum limit".
(b) The other clause relevant for our purposes is contained in Annexure-1 to the letter dated 9.6.2000 of NABARD at page 42 of the paper book which reads as follows :-
"Projects upto 5000 tonnes capacity would be preferred. The banks may sanction projects having cold storage capacity of more than 5000 tonnes also subject to the normal techno-financial appraisal but the maximum amount of subsidy under these projects would be calculated as per the guidelines at sub paragraph (iv) above and restricted to Rs. 50 lakh and in the case of North-Eastern States, the limit of subsidy would be Rs. 60 lakh".
(c) The last clause relevant for our purposes, which is contained in the circular dated 30.11.2004 forwarded by the General Manager, NABARD reads as follows :-
"(iii) Subsidy in respect of cold storages under expansion /modernization * Expansion proposals
(a) In case subsidy has already been availed in respect of the existing unit under the CISS, the total entitlement of subsidy will be restricted to the capacity after expansion upto 5000 MT with application of norms regarding maximum of subsidy ceiling prescribed by NHB. Thus, subsidy after netting the amount received earlier will be released to the promoter".
From a simple reading of the aforesaid three clauses, it is apparent that so far as the construction of new cold storages are concerned, there is no restriction qua the capacity for which the promoters may decide to have the cold storage but for quantum of the subsidy the capacity of such cold storages has to be treated as limited to Rs.50.00 lakhs in areas other than North Eastern States. It has been further clarified that the projects with a capacity of more than 5000 MT would be entitled to the subsidy to be calculated at the maximum capacity of 5000 MT only.
Similar is the intention of clause-5 contained in the letter of annexure-1, part of the letter dated 9.6.2000. These two clauses in our opinion deal with construction of new cold storages, where the proposed capacity is being beyond 5000 MT.
So far as the proposal from existing cold storages is concerned, it is dealt with in clause-I of letter dated 30.11.2004 which provides that the entitlement of subsidy will be restricted to the capacity after expansion upto 5000 MT only.
The logical meaning of all the aforesaid three clauses is that the State has decided to provide subsidy in the matter of construction, expansion, modernization etc to cold storages etc. which a maximum capacity of 5000 MT and in case a promoter wants to construct a new cold storage in excess of 5000 MT., then his proposal in the matter of subsidy is to be confined to 5000 MT only, and similarly, in the case of expansion, the maximum eligibility for the purposes of providing subsidy has been restricted to the capacity of 5000 MT only.
Admittedly, the petitioner had availed the benefit of subsidy upto the maximum capacity of 5000 MT earlier.
His proposal for further expansion of capacity, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly been turned down by the authority as early as in the year 2011. We find absolutely no illegality in the decision so taken.
The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable in the facts of the case inasmuch as the issue of expansion of existing cold storage was not subject matter of consideration in the said matter.
There is no merits in the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.2.2016 vs/bhanu