1 APHC010014192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 873 OF 2024 Between: 1. M/s Bhagyalakshmi Powerlooms, Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt.C.Bhagya Lakshmi W/o. C.Krishna, aged about 40 Years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.5-636-1, Sanjaynagar, Dharmavaram, Anantapuram District, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director of Industries, Govt. of A.P, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The District Collector, Anantapuram District at Anantapuram. 4. The General Manager, District Industries Center, Anantapuram District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the sanctioned incentive amount of Rs. 59,57,820/- which was sanctioned through proceedings dated 18-10-2022 vide Lr.No.ISI 2 1902441 to the Petitioner even after completion of 14 months as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Official Respondents to release the sanctioned incentive amount of Rs.59,57,820/- to the petitioner forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Official Respondents to release the sanctioned incentive amount of Rs. 59,57,820/- to the Petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: BANDI SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INDUSTRIES and COMMERCE (AP) The Court made the following order: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 873 OF 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief: “to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the sanctioned incentive amount of Rs. 59,57,820/- which was sanctioned through proceedings dated 18-10-2022 vide Lr.No.ISI 1902441 to the Petitioner even after completion of 14 months as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Official Respondents to release the sanctioned incentive amount of Rs.59,57,820/- to the petitioner forthwith and to pass” 2. Heard Sri Bandi Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, appearing for the respondents. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is from weavers family and she belongs to Backward Caste (BC) Community and she is running micro enterprise which comes under the parameters enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.36, Industries & Commerce (IP & INF) dated 29.04.2015 issued by the 1st respondent, with a primary object to provide fiscal incentives to the various entrepreneurs and 4 industries which were registered under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act, 2006 and rules thereon. Accordingly, the petitioner so as to start a business, prepared a project report with an estimate cost of Rs.1,32,39,600/- inclusive of plant, machinery and raw material and approached State Bank of India, Dharmavaram and the bank authorities pleased to grant a loan of Rs.99.00 lakhs and the remaining amount was meted out by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel further submits that keeping in view the said G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 29.04.2015, the petitioner established Bhagyalakshmi Powerlooms, at Dharmavaram, Sri Satya Sai District, with an investment of Rs.1.32 crores(approximately) with the line of activity “Manufacture of Powerloom Sarees” and commenced production on 09.8.2019. As per the industrial policy an industry/enterprise in which investment on plant and machinery does not exceed Rs.10.00 crores and annual turnover does not exceed Rs.50.00 crores, as defined by the Government of India from time to time, the same is called as small scale industry and as such, the petitioner’s industry will fall under the category of small scale industry. 5. According to the petitioner, she submitted an application on 16.11.2019 seeking incentives under special package for Backward Caste Community category, which were at 45% of the total cost of the project under claim ID ISI 1902441. 5 6. In response thereto, the 4th respondent communicated letter dated 19.12.2019, where under informing the petitioner that he sought clarification from the Assistant Director, handlooms so as to place the claim before DIPC. After the communication dated 19.12.2019, the petitioner made repeated representations during spandana programs and the last representation dated 02.08.2021 to the respondent authorities. As the respondent authorities have not acted upon the representations of the petitioner, she filed W.P.No.20816 of 2021, where under this Court directed the respondents to consider the representation dated 10.07.2021 of the petitioner after affording personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within stipulated period. 7. It is further contended that as the 3rd respondent rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that the permissions for establishment of power looms unit in Dharmavaram would not be allowed, the petitioner again filed another W.P.No.22336 of 2022 before this Court, where under this Court after considering the material available on record, allowed the said writ petition on 16.09.2022, directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s application dated 10.07.2021 strictly in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.36 and without reference to the location of the power loom of the petitioner located at Dharmavaram. 6 8. It is the further case of the petitioner that consequent to the orders dated 16.09.2022, she made representation to the respondent authorities concerned for considering her application. On 18.10.2022, the 4th respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner informing that her application was considered by the authorities and she was sanctioned incentives for an amount of Rs.59,57,820/- and the same will be credited to her account. But the same was not fructified, as such, the petitioner again approached the respondent authorities by way of representations for release of the sanctioned amount, despite the same, respondent authorities not released amounts. Hence, she filed the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel mainly asserts that though the 4th respondent vide letter No.ISI1902441 dated 18.10.2022 sanctioned the amount of Rs.59,57,820/- towards reimbursement in the wake of G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 29.04.2015, inspite of the same, required amount has not been released to the petitioner till today, which leads to serious prejudice to her vested rights including her fundamental rights enunciated in part III of Constitution of India. 10. On the other hand, basing upon written instructions dated 10.03.2026, learned Assistant Government Pleader (Industries and Commerce) states that consequent to the orders dated 16.09.2022 in W.P.No.22336 of 2022, the respondent authorities conducted the Minutes 7 of District Level Task Force Committee (DLTFC) meeting on 19.09.2022, in turn, the respondent authorities had already disbursed partial amount of Rs.27,02,793/- in favour of the petitioner on 10.11.2025 out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs.59,57,820/- and remaining balance amount of Rs.32,55,027/- will be released as and when the funds are released by the Government. 11. To substantiate her submissions, she placed a copy of the written instructions dated 10.03.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent. On perusal of the written instructions dated 10.03.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent, it appears that, it is not in dispute that the respondent authorities have sanctioned total amount of Rs.59,57,820/-(Rupees fifty nine lakhs fifty seven thousand eight hundred and twenty only) towards reimbursement of investment subsidy @ 45% of the Fixed Capital Investment in the DIEPC meeting held on 07.10.2022 as per IDP 2015-20 policy, in favour of the petitioner. Further, it is also indicated that the partial amount of Rs.27,02,793/- was released in favour of the petitioner on 10.11.2025 out of the total sanctioned amount of Rs.59,57,820/- and the remaining balance amount of Rs.32,55,027/- will be released as and when the funds are released by the Government. 12. Therefore, having regard to the above submissions made on either side and also in view of the written instructions dated 10.03.2026 of the 8 2nd respondent, which are made as part of the record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:- Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to release the remaining balance amount i.e., Rs.32,55,027/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs fifty five thousand and twenty seven only) [Rs.59,57,820/- (total sanctioned amount) – Rs.27,02,793/- (partially disbursed amount) = Rs.32,55,027/- (balance amount)] to the petitioner, as early as possible, preferably, within a period of (3) three months, from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 13. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:12.03.2026 Rns 9 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION No.873 of 2024 Date:12.03.2026 Rns