Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010225992017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/8248/2017 M/S. ISHWAR FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI SANWAR MAL AGARWAL. S/O- LT CHETRAM AGARWAL R/O- TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O. and DIST-TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE and INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2:THE COMMISSIONER DEPTT. OF INDUSTRIES and COMMERCE GOVT. OF ASSAM UDYOG BHAWAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21 3:NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN and MANAGING DIRECTOR NEDFI. NEDFI BHAWAN. DISPUR GHY-6 4:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR F/P DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES and COMMERCE ASSAM GHY-21 5:THE GENERAL MANAGER DEPTT. OF DISTRICT INDUSTRIES and COMMERCE CENTRE TINSUKIA DIST- TINSUKI Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : , MS M PARBIN,MS. R JUGLI,DR ANKIT TODI,MR A NATH,DR B P TODI Advocate for the Respondent : DR.B AHMED, MRS. A GAYAN,MR. P DAS,SC, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE,ASSTT.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 27.01.2026 Heard Dr. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri K. Gogoi, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Shri G. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-NEDFI. 2. The instant writ petition has been instituted against an order dated 05/07.10.2015 passed by the Addl. Director, Industries and Commerce Department for payment of the due amount and also interest as per bank loan at the rate of 12% of the principal amount from the date of forwarding of the claim amount. 3. As per the projected facts, the petitioner is a registered Company, namely, M/S Ishwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the manufacturing of atta, maida, suji, bran etc. and is also registered as SSI unit. The Govt. of India in the Ministry of Industry had introduced a scheme, called, Transport Subsidy Scheme which was primarily for the purpose of industrial growth in selected areas. The Scheme was extended till 31.03.2007 in the North Eastern Region. The petitioner had registered itself for entitlement of such transport subsidy. The petitioner had also approached this Court earlier for payment of subsidy and such claim was found to be genuine by this Court which had passed an order dated 20.07.2012 in WP(C)/1572/2009 for a certain period. However, the said Transport Subsidy for the period from 01.06.2009 to 15.06.2009 has been rejected and accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed. Page No.# 3/4 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, fairly informed that an identical issue had come up before this Court in WP(C)/463/2020 which was dismissed on 22.07.2025. He has, however, informed that the steps are in process for preferring an appeal against the said judgment. 5. Both Shri Gogoi, learned State Counsel and Shri Das, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 have submitted that in view of the aforesaid judgment dated 22.07.2025, there is no requirement for any further adjudication of the issue which is identical. 6. The aforesaid judgment dated 22.07.2025 has been placed on record. In the said judgment, the following observations have been made: “20. Mr. A. Kalita, the learned Standing counsel for the State Respondents submitted that the Petitioner cannot claim any rights on the basis of the State Level Committee’s recommendation inasmuch as the recommendation is subject to the decision of the DPIIT who is the final Authority. 40. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed off with the following observations and directions: (A) The impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklists A & B introduced are clarificatory in nature and in larger public interest. (B) The impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 and the Checklist A do not call for any interference from this Court. (C) The doctrine of promissory estoppel which was sought to be contended by Page No.# 4/4 the Petitioner herein to be applicable in the present case, do not apply, as the impugned communication dated 20.11.2009 is in larger public interest. (D) The instant writ petition is dismissed. (E) There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by a Co-ordinate Bench rather, this Court is in agreement with the said conclusion. 8. Accordingly, by following the aforesaid judgment, the instant petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant