-1- 2025:CGHC:30557 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1071 of 2020 M/s Deshlahra Minerals A Small Scale Industry, Through Dilip Deshlahra, S/o Siremal Deshlahra, Aged About 60 Years, Proprietor, Having Its Industry At Village Jatam, Post Office, Sargipal, Block Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh And Having Its Office At 2nd Floor Matoshri Complex In Front Of Steel City Hospital, Maharaja Chowk, Mukt Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattigarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Directorate Of Industries Through Its Director-Cum-Appellate Authority, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1. Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Industries Centre Through Its General Manager, District Bastar At Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 04.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1). That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from respondents with respect to passing of the impugned order dated 30/04/2019 and 12/07/2018 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned orders dated 12/07/2018 (Annexure-P/12) passed by Respondent No.2 and order dated 30/04/2019 (Annexure-P/15) passed by Respondent No.1, being illegal, arbitrary and whimsical in nature and have been issued without any application of mind at all. 10.3) Cost of the petition be allowed.” 2) Mr. P. R. Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner-M/s Deshlahra Minerals, a proprietorship firm, located at Village Jatam, Post Sargipal, Block Jagdalpur, is engaged in the manufacturing and processing of iron ore. He further submits that the firm established a fully mechanized iron ore crushing plant for which it availed a term loan of Rs. 63 lakhs from the Bank of Maharashtra. He also submits that the petitioner commenced production on 02.04.2006 and started supplying iron ore chips in accordance with demand orders. He would contend that in support of the industrial development, the General Manager, District Industries and Trade Center (hereinafter referred to as DITC), Jagdalpur, issued a Stamp Duty Exemption Certificate on 19 September 2005 in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Industrial Policy of the year 2004 to 2009. The unit was also granted a Small Scale Industry (SSI) Registration Certificate. 3) He would also contend that the petitioner submitted an application seeking interest subsidy under the said industrial policy, which was rejected by respondent No. 3 on 15.12.2006. He further states that the petitioner challenged -3- the said order by filing an appeal before respondent No. 2, Directorate of Industries, Raipur, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPC No. 3104 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2017. 4) It is argued that the petitioner has already repaid the entire loan amount. According to the Chhattisgarh Industrial Policy of 2004 to 2009, the petitioner was entitled to get an interest subsidy. As per the said policy, the petitioner was required to repay loan instalments on a quarterly basis and submit claims for interest subsidy within six months from the end of each quarter. He would further argue that though the respondents granted interest subsidy for certain quarters but the benefit of subsidy was not extended for the quarters ending with June 2006, June 2008, September 2008, and December 2008. It is fairly submitted that in the quarters ending June 2006 and June 2008, the petitioner failed to deposit installments within the stipulated time. However, with regard to the quarters ending September 2008 and December 2008, it is contended that the installments were deposited within due time, yet the benefit of interest subsidy has not been extended; thus he prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant interest subsidy for the quarters ending September 2008 and December 2008. 5) On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State would oppose the submissions advanced by Mr. Patankar. He submits that a perusal of the petitioner's representations would reveal that the petitioner failed to deposit installments within the due time for the quarters ending with September 2008 and December 2008. 6) With regard to the quarter ending with December 2008, he submits that the full amount of the installment was not deposited within the due date. Out of the total -4- installment of Rs.4,68,569, the petitioner deposited only Rs. 4,50,000, therefore, the benefit of interest subsidy was not extended. 7) With respect to the quarter ending with September 2008, Mr. Gupta submits that there was a delay in depositing the installment and the complete amount was not deposited. He further contends that the claim was also not submitted before the General Manager, District Industries Center within the prescribed period of six months. Thus, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9) A bare perusal of the representation submitted by the petitioner would show that the installments for the quarters ending with June 2006 and September 2008 were not deposited within the time. With regard to the quarter ending September 2008, out of the total installment of Rs. 4,72,433, the petitioner deposited Rs. 4,00,000. However, the claim was not made within a period of six-months as prescribed under Clause 5.4 of the Industrial Policy. 10) With regard to the quarter ending December 2008, the installment was paid within the due time. Only Rs. 4,50,000 was paid against the total installment of Rs. 4,68,569 and the claim was submitted within the prescribed time limit. 11) In view of the above discussed facts, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of interest subsidy with respect to the quarters ending with June 2006, June 2008, and September 2008. However, for the quarter ending with December 2008, since the installment was deposited within the prescribed time and the claim was also placed within the permissible period, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of interest subsidy. -5- 12) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of interest subsidy to the petitioner forthwith for the quarter ending with December 2008. 13) Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part at the motion stage itself. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim