Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010249802024 2026:GAU-AS:13811-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/40/2025 1.M/S RIVER VALLEY TEA COMPANY PRIVATE LTD AND ANR A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THANA ROAD, P.O. and , DIST. TINSUKIA, ASAM-ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT BISHMILE, PO CHABUA DIST DIBRUGARH, , REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWALLA SON OF LT. PARSHURAM AGARWALLA R/O BISHMILE, P.O. CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM 2: SRI MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWALLA S/O LT. PARSHURAM AGARWALLA R/O BISHMILE P.O. CHABUA DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM EMPLOYED AS DIRECTOR RIVER VALLEY TEA COMPANY PVT. LTD VERSUS 1.THE TEA BOARD AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, MINISTRY, GOVT. OF INDIA, 14 B.T.M. SARANI BRABOURNE ROAD KOLKATA- 700001 2:THE DIRECTOR TEA DEVELOPMENT TEA BOARD OF INDIA 14 B.T.M. SARANI BRABOURNE ROAD KOLKATA- 700001. 3:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TEA BOARD OF INIDA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY GOVT.OF INDIA NORTH-EAST ZONL OFFICE 5TH and 6TH FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR TEA DEVELOPMENT TEA BOARD OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY GOVT. OF INDIA NORTH-EAST ZONAL OFFICE 5TH and 6TH FLOOR HOUSEFED COMPLEX CENTRAL BLOCK BELTOLA BASISTHA ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006 Page No.# 2/6 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Dutta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. J. Das, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms. L. Devi, Advocate. –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 17.09.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms. L. Devi, learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. The appellant(s), namely, M/s. River Valley Tea Company Private Limited and its Director, have questioned the judgment dated 29.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge, dismissing WP(C) No.6359/2016, preferred by them and the order dated 23.10.2024, rejecting Review Petition No.184/2024 arising out of the judgment, referred to above. 3. The dispute centres on the claim of the appellants for enhanced replanting subsidies under the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme, administered by the Tea Board of India, which is a part of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. 4. The appellants own a Tea Estate in Sivasagar district of Assam. They had applied for subsidies under the Special Purpose Tea Fund Page No.# 3/6 Scheme (in short, “SPTF Scheme”) during the XI Five-Year Plan (2000-2007) for uprooting and re-planting tea bushes in two sections, namely, Section 25(P) and Section 16. 5. It appears that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was granted to the appellants sometimes in December, 2012 to commence the work. 6. The work relating to Section 25(P) was completed earlier and subsidy was given to the appellants at the XI Plan rate of Rs.89,650/- per hectare. For Section 16, uprooting commenced from December, 2012 to October, 2013, followed by soil rehabilitation by planting Guatemala grass between February and March, 2014 and replanting from November 2015 to December 2015. 7. The Tea Development and Promotion Scheme (in short, “XII Plan”) under the XII Five-Year Plan [2012-2017) was rolled out, which was made effective from 10.12.2014. Under this Plan, the replanting subsidy was enhanced per hectare. 8. With the rolling out of XII Plan, the appellants claimed enhanced rate for Section 16, as the replanting had taken place post- December 2014 but within the 36-months’ limit from the completion of the uprooting. 9. However, after inspection, the Tea Board sanctioned the subsidy to the appellants at the old XI Plan rate, denying the enhancement on the ground that in a single application for subsidy under XI Plan, there could have been no different rates for Section 25(P) and Section 16. Page No.# 4/6 10. The afore-noted denial by the Tea Board was communicated to the appellants on 19.08.2016, specifically indicating that Section No.25 (P) and Section No.16, both were part of the application for replanting subsidy received by them during the Accounting-Year 2012-2013. Though the XII Plan period started from 01.04.2012, but as per the directive of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, the effective date for XII Plan was 10.12.2014. It has also been mentioned that thus, cases where replanting started` on or after 10.12.2014 would only be eligible for XII Plan rate. 11. It was, therefore, communicated to the appellants that in their case, replanting started in two phases. The first phase of the replanting commenced in Section 25(P) before 10.12.2014 and the subsidy was released as per the XI Plan rates; and the second phase of replanting commenced in Section No.16 after 10.12.2014. Thus, the XII Plan rates would not be applicable to the appellants for Section 16 re-plantation since the other part of the Section had already been replanted before 10.12.2014, for which subsidy had already been paid as per the XI Plan rates. It was categorically informed to them that there could be no two separate subsidy rates in a single application under Plan XI for rejuvenation. 12. The afore-noted communication was questioned by the appellants by filing WP(C) No.6359/2016 on the ground that the denial of XII plan rates is arbitrary. 13. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellants could not be sustained before the learned Single Judge. The afore-noted writ Page No.# 5/6 petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.08.2024 and the review petition, as noted above, preferred by them subsequently, was also dismissed on 23.10.2024. 14. The learned Single Judge had actually held that the appellants would not be entitled to the subsidy as per the XII Plan rate, as they had failed the six months’ time-line of completion of replanting and that they had completed the replanting after XII Plan having been rolled out, and that completion post-Plan XII does not confer automatic conversion of the scheme under the XII Plan. 15. We, however, have a different reason for not allowing the claim of the appellants and upholding the end result arrived at by the learned Single Judge to be justified, namely, that the subsidy was claimed under the XI Plan, part of which was concluded within the check period whereas the other part continued and was completed during the XII Plan roll out period. This was permissible under the XI Plan, which clearly stipulates that such permission would normally be granted. The XII Plan would be rolled out only after evaluation of the success of the XI Plan in terms of rejuvenation of the Tea Estates. Merely because the XII Plan, for subsidy, which offered advanced rates, was found to be necessary, the process started under the XI Plan would only be amenable to the rate of subsidy offered under the XI Plan and not XII Plan. 16. For the reasons noted herein above, we find that the appellants are not entitled to any enhanced subsidy under XII Plan. 17. With the afore-noted observations, the present appeal stands Page No.# 6/6 dismissed. 18. No order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant