M/S Biva Bakers vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors
- Court
- Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/46
GAHC010017922024
2026:GAU-AS:7157
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/521/2024
M/S BIVA BAKERS
A UNIT OF BIVA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD.
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR RAJU BANIK,
S/O- LATE GOBARDHAN BANIK,
C/O- IID CENTRE, MALINIBEEL, SILCHAR,
P.O- TARAPUR,
P.S- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. , MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES,
GOVT. OF INDIA, PANCHSHEEL BHAWAN, AUGUST KRANTI MARG, NEW
DELHI
2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
GOVT OF ASSAM
UDYUG BHAWAN
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-21
4:THE NORTH EASTERN DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LTD
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR (NEDFI)
NEDFI BHAWAN
Page No.# 2/46
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
5:THE STATE MISION DIRECTOR
NATIONAL MISION FOR FOOD PROCESSING
GOVT. OF ASSAM
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GUWAHATI-21
6:THE GENERAL MANAGER
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
SILCHAR
DIST- CACHA
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Ms. N Saikia
Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. B Chakrabarty,
CGC Mr. G Das for NEDFI
Mr. B Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam
Date on which Judgment is reserved: 17.02.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 22.05.2026
Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA
Operative Part of the Judgment
Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes
Pronounced
JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV)
Heard Ms. N Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner. I have also heard Mr. B Chakrabarty, the learned CGC, who
appears on behalf of the respondent No.1; Mr. B Gogoi, the learned
Page No.# 3/46
Addl. AG, Assam, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3,
5 and 6; Mr. G Das, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the
respondent No.4.
PREFACE:
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of the
petitioner's claim for subsidy under the National Mission on Food
Processing (for short, ‘the NMFP’) Scheme vide the Speaking Order
dated 15.12.2023.
3. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of the NMFP Scheme.
The salient features are mentioned hereinunder:
NATIONAL MISSION ON FOOD PROCESSING SCHEME:
4. The Ministry of Food Processing Industries launched a Centrally
Sponsored Scheme, namely the National Mission on Food Processing
th
(NMFP) during the 12 Plan, (2012-13) for implementation through
States/Union Territories. The basic objectives of the NMFP was
decentralization of the implementation of the Schemes of the Ministry
of Food Processing Industries, Government of India which would lead
to substantial participation of the State Governments/Union
Territories. The NMFP, contemplated establishment of a National
Mission as well as corresponding Mission in the State and the District
Level.
Page No.# 4/46
5. These contemplations were on the basis that such Schemes
would improve significantly, the Ministry of Food Processing Industries
outreach in terms of planning, supervision and monitoring of various
schemes. The objectives behind the implementation of the NMFP
th
during the remaining period of the 12 Plan, i.e. for 2013-17 have
been mentioned at Clause 2 of the guidelines for implementation of
the National Mission on Food Processing, during the remainder of the
th
12 Plan (2013-17). These guidelines are mentioned hereinafter as
‘NMFP guidelines’ The said objectives stated at Clause 2 of the NMFP
guidelines are as hereinunder:
“2. Objectives:
i. To promote facilities for post-harvest operations including setting up of
food processing industries.
ii. To undertake decentralization of the schemes so far operated by the
Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MoFPI) in order to take into account the
requirements suitable to the local needs.
iii. To augment the capacity of food processors working to upscale their
operations through capital infusion, technology transfer, skill Upgradation and
handholding support.
iv. To support established self-help groups working in food processing sector to
facilitate them to achieve SME status.
v. Capacity development and skill upgradation through institutional training
to ensure sustainable employment opportunities to the people and also to reduce
the gap in requirement and availability of skilled manpower in food processing
sector.
vi. To raise the standards of food safety and hygiene in order to meet the
Page No.# 5/46
norms set up by FSSAI.
vii. To facilitate food processing industries to adopt HACCP and ISO certification
norms.
viii. To augment farm gate infrastructure, supply chain logistics, storage and
processing capacity.
ix. To provide better support system to organized food processing sector.”
6. The NMFP guidelines further stipulated the Structure at the
National Level, as well as at the State Level, at Clauses 3 and 4 of the
said guidelines.
7. The funding pattern of the NMFP are stated at Clause 5 of the
NMFP guidelines and from a perusal thereof, it would show that the
Scheme would be implemented as a new Centrally Sponsored Scheme
in all the States in the ratio of 75:25 (Government of India and
States) except for North Eastern States, where the ratio would be
90:10 and in respect to all the Union Territories, it would be 100%
centrally sponsored.
8. Clause 6 stipulated the Criteria for allocation of funds to the
States.
9. Clause 7 stipulated the Schemes to be implemented under the
Mission during the period from 2013-17. The major
programmes/schemes to be implemented during the remainder of the
Page No.# 6/46
th
12 Plan were:
(i). Scheme for Technology Up-gradation/ Establishment/Modernisation of
Food Processing Industries.
(ii) Scheme for Cold Chain, Value Addition and Preservation Infrastructure for Non
Horticultural Products .
(iii) Setting up / modernisation / expansion of Abattoirs (to be implemented w.e.f. 2014-
17. Guidelines are being issued separately).
(iv) Scheme for Human Resource Development (HRD).
(a) Creation of Infrastructure facilities for running Degree/Diploma/Certificate
Courses in Food Processing Technology.
(b) Entrepreneurship Development Program (EDP).
(c) Food Processing Training Centre (FPTC).
(d) Training at recognised Institutes and sensitization cum awareness
programme.
(v) Scheme for Promotional Activities .
(a) Organizing Seminar/Workshops.
(b) Conducting Studies/Surveys.
(c) Support to Exhibitions/Fairs.
(d) Advertisement & Publicity.
(vi) Scheme for Creating Primary Processing Centres / Collection Centres in Rural Areas.
(vii) Modernisation of Meat Shops.
(viii) Reefer Vehicles.
(ix) Old Food Parks.
10. The procedure for approval was mentioned at Clause 10 of the
NMFP guidelines. Clause 10 being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:
“Procedure for approval:
10.1 The SLEC may decide the level competent to accord project specific
approvals under all the schemes of the Mission. SLEC may also decide the modalities,
Page No.# 7/46
including delegation of sanction powers under the schemes to sub committees /
officers, including the scrutiny of individual proposals and release of funds. SLEC may
periodically monitor, review and evaluate the implementation of NMFP in the State.
10.2 State Mission Directorate would ensure identification of beneficiaries in the
respective States / UTs for various schemes of NMFP during 2013-17. They will also
ensure physical verification of the projects assisted, concurrent evaluation as well as
submission of monthly progress reports to the Ministry in soft and hard copies in the
prescribed reporting format. ( Annexure-XXII)
10.3 The Area Officers of the Ministry will also participate in the meetings of SLEC.
They may also help in monitoring the progress of implementation of NMFP in the
concerned state, undertake physical visits of some projects and ensure overall
coordination between the State Mission Directorates and the Ministry.
10.4 Ministry of Food Processing Industries may also undertake evaluation of the
implementation of the schemes of the Mission by engaging professional agencies, if
necessary.
11. Clause 13 of the NMFP guidelines stipulated that certain flexibility
were granted to the States/ Union Territories for considering deviation
proposal under the NMFP.
12. The petitioner herein applied for technology
upgradation/establishment/modernization of food processing
th
industries, during the remainder of the 12 Plan (2013-17). It is
relevant to take note of that a set of guidelines specifically for
implementation of the Scheme of technology upgradation /
establishment / modernization of food processing industries during
th
the remainder of 12 Plan (2013-17) under the NMFP was issued by
the Ministry of National Mission on Food Processing, Government of
Page No.# 8/46
India. These guidelines being specific to the issue involved are
hereinafter referred to as the ‘Relevant Guidelines’.
13. Clause 1 of the said Relevant Guidelines stipulates the objectives
i.e. to increase the level of processing, reduction of wastage, value
addition, enhance the income of the farmers as well as increase
exports, thereby resulting in overall development of food processing
sector. The NMFP Scheme envisaged to extend the financial assistance
for establishment of new food processing units as well as technology
upgradation and expansion of existing units in the Country.
14. What were the eligible sectors were mentioned in Clause 2 of the
Relevant Guidelines. It stipulated that the food processing Sectors like
fruits and vegetables, milk, meat, poultry, fish products, cereal and
other consumer foods, rice, flour, pulse, oil, millet, and such other
Agri-horti sectors including food flavors, colours, oleoresins, spices,
coconut, mushrooms, wines, and hops were covered under the said
Scheme. The activities of aerated water, packaged drinking water, and
soft drinks were however brought outside the scope of the said
scheme.
15. Clause 3 of the said Relevant Guidelines stipulated which were the
eligible entities. They included various implementing agencies/
organizations such as Government, PSUs/Joint
Page No.# 9/46
Ventures/NGOs/Cooperatives/SHGs/Private Sector, /Individual
engaged in the establishment/upgradation/ modernization of Food
Processing Units.
16. The pattern of assistance has been mentioned at Clause 4 of the
Relevant Guidelines and the said clause being relevant is reproduced
hereinunder:
“Pattern of assistance: The scheme envisages financial assistance to food processing
units in the form of grant-in-aid :
25% of the cost of Plant & machinery and technical civil works, subject to a
maximum of Rs.50 lakhs in general areas
33.33% of the cost of Plant & machinery and technical civil works, subject to a
maximum of Rs. 75 lakhs in difficult areas(i.e. Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep) and Integrated Tribal
Development Project (ITDP) areas.
50% of the cost of Plant & machinery and technical civil works, subject
to a maximum of Rs.100 lakhs for North Eastern States including Sikkim. ”
17. Clause 5 of the Relevant Guidelines stipulated the eligible or
ineligible components.
18. Clause 6 stipulated the procedure of receipt of applications. The
said clause being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:
“Receipt of applications:
State Mission Directorate of NMFP may assess the load of applications to be
received by them and accordingly, decide with the approval of SLEC, modus operandi of
receipt of applications directly or through banks / Financial Institutions / e-portal etc. In
Page No.# 10/46
case the applicant does not propose to avail any term loan, proposals are compulsorily
required to be appraised by any nationalized bank / financial institutions. SLEC may
decide the financial institutions which can appraise such projects.”
19. Clause 7 of the Relevant Guidelines stipulated the procedure for
submission of applications/project proposals for financial assistance.
The said clause, being relevant, is reproduced hereinunder:
“Procedure for submission of applications / project proposals for financial assistance:
Applicants seeking financial assistance are required to submit their applications to
the designated authority / State Mission Directorate of NMFP. Applicants must submit
their applications at least 2 months before the date of start of Commercial production in
prescribed format (Annexure-III)*
alongwith the enclosures / documents.”
20. Clause 8 of the Relevant Guidelines relates to Release of Grant.
Taking into account the Speaking Order which is impugned in the
instant proceeding dated 15.12.2023, this Court finds it relevant to
reproduce Clause 8 along with its sub-clauses as under:
“8. Release of grant: The grant-in-aid will be released in two equal instalments:
st
8.1 Release of 1 instalment:
The first instalment of grant would be released after the firm has utilized 50% of
the term loan as well as 50% of promoter’s contribution and on production of the
following documents by the firm:
(i) Duly notarized Surety Bond – To be executed by the beneficiary company on
Non-Judicial stamp paper of not less than Rs. 100/- (Appendix-A).
(ii) Duly notarized Affidavit – To be executed by the beneficiary company on Non-
Judicial stamp paper of not less than Rs. 100/- (Appendix-B).
(iii) Bank Certificate certifying that they have released 50% of term loan and have
Page No.# 11/46
no objection on release of 1st instalment of grant being provided by state / UTs
(Annexure- IV).
(iv) CA certificate – (Appendix-C).
Note: *Annexures are scheme specific.
Appendixes are common for all schemes.
Based on the CA certificate, the Competent Authority as designated by SLEC
would arrive at the eligible amount of grant, and release 50% of the eligible amount as
1stinstalment subject to the availability of all other requisite documents as per scheme
guidelines (para 9 below).
8.2 Release of 2ndinstalment:
The second instalment of the grant would be released only after confirming the
commencement of commercial production through physical verification by the State
Mission Directorate of NMFP and submission of documents specified below by the firm,
utilization of first instalment of the grant, 100% of Term Loan as well as 100% of
Promoter’s contribution.
(i) Utilization Certificate – as per GFR 19A, Duly certified by the C.A. and
countersigned by the Bank and promoter of the beneficiary company (Appendix-D).
(ii) Chartered Accountant Certificate – Actual expenditure incurred on the project
showing the means of finances and 100% utilization of Promoters contribution, 100% of
Term loan and 1st instalment of released grant (Appendix-C).
(iii) Bank Certificate – certifying that they have released 100% of term loan and
1st instalment of grant released by the States / UTs. They have no objection in releasing
2nd instalment of grant being released by States / UTs (Annexure-V).
(iv) Chartered Engineer Certificates – certifying the Item wise and cost wise
details of Technical civil works envisaged duly certified by Chartered Engineer (Civil) and
Item wise and cost wise details of Plant & Machinery envisaged duly certified by
Chartered Engineer (Mechanical).
21. Clause 9 of the Relevant Guidelines stipulated the documents
required. The said clause being relevant is reproduced hereinunder:
Page No.# 12/46
“9. Documents required:
(ii) Application in the prescribed format (Annexure-III).
(iii) Detailed Project Report (DPR).
(iv) Sanction letter of term loan from bank / financial institutions, if any.
(v) Appraisal report from Bank / Financial Institution.
(vi) Certificate of incorporation/registration of the organization, Memorandum and
Articles of Association and Bye laws of the society (if applicable)/ partnership deed etc.
(vii) Bio-data/background of the office bearers/promoters of the organization.
(viii) Annual reports and Audited Statement of Accounts of last three years, in case of
expansion /upgradation proposals/cases.
(ix) Blue Print of the building Plan.
(x) Notarized English version of land document (in case it is in any of the regional
languages).
(xi) Item wise and cost wise details of Technical civil works envisaged duly certified by
Chartered Engineer (Civil).
(xii) Item wise and cost wise details of Plant & Machinery envisaged duly certified by
Chartered Engineer (Mechanical).
(xiii) Quotations from the suppliers of Plant & machinery and equipments etc. required
for the project.
(xiv) Marketing strategy.
(xv) Process Flow diagram.
(xvi) SSI/IEM registration etc.
(xvii) Implementation schedule indicating (a) date of acquiring land (b) date of start of
construction of building (c) date of completion of building (d) date for placing order for
plant & machinery (e) date of installation/erection (f) date of trial production/ running
and (g) date of commercial production/ running.
(xviii) An affidavit duly executed on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- or more duly
notarized by Notary Public affirming that:
(a) organization’s sister concern (s)/ related company / group company as well
as the applicant company itself availed any financial assistance for a food
processing project in the past from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries
Page No.# 13/46
(MoFPI) or not, if yes, the details thereof.
(b) organization has not obtained/applied for or will not obtain any
grant/subsidy from any Ministry/Department of Central Govt/GOI
organization/agencies and State Govt for the same purpose/activity /same
components. If yes, the details thereof.”
22. The manner in which the application is required to be filed is
provided in Annexure-III. The proforma has also been given as
regards the Certificate to be issued by the Bank as regards appraisal
of the project in Annexure IV, as well as the certificate to be issued by
the Bank about the release of the term loan has been mentioned at
Annexure-V.
CONSPECTUS OF FACTS :
23. The petitioner being encouraged by the Scheme of the National
Mission on Food Processing announced by the Government of India
submitted an application along with all necessary supporting
documents on 26.03.2014 before the Ministry of Food Processing
Industries through the Director of Industries, Assam, seeking grant of
financial assistance under technology upgradation / establishment /
modernization-cum-expansion of food processing industries. By the
said application, the petitioner intimated that the petitioner intended
to adopt modern processing technology under expansion of the
existing bakery. In the said application, how the project would be
financed was mentioned at Clause 21 i.e. the Promoter's Equity of
Page No.# 14/46
Rs.50 lakhs, which is 25% of the total project cost; Term loan of
Rs.150 lakhs, which would be 75% of the project cost, totaling to
Rs.200 lakhs.
24. Pursuant to the submission of the said application along with the
necessary documents, the petitioner's Unit was physically verified on
27.03.2014. While carrying out the enquiry, it was also found that the
term loan of Rs.150 lakhs have already been sanctioned by the
Punjab National Bank (for short, the PNB) Silchar Branch on
28.01.2014 and further, an amount of Rs.75.55 lakhs have already
been disbursed by the Financial Institution/Bank upto 25.03.2014.
25. The Functional Manager, District Industries and Commerce
Centre, Silchar, submitted an enquiry report on 27.03.2014, certifying
that he had examined each and every particulars furnished by the
petitioner alongwith all annexures and relevant documents and found
them to be correct and beyond all reasonable doubts, and accordingly,
on the basis of the said enquiry report, the General Manager, District
Industries and Commerce Centre, Silchar had recommended that the
petitioner was entitled to the grant-in-aid. In addition to that, on
29.03.2014, the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce
Center, Silchar, while forwarding the application for financial
assistance submitted by the petitioner to the State Mission Director,
Page No.# 15/46
National Mission on Food Processing had categorically mentioned that
the petitioner's existing Unit is now envisaged under expansion-cum-
modernization programme, and the Unit had submitted all the
required documents as per the Relevant guidelines i.e. there was
compliance in terms with Clause 9 of the Relevant guidelines as
quoted hereinabove.
26. It is also very pertinent to take note of that the petitioner had
duly submitted the various documents which included the Certificate
issued by the Chartered Accountant dated 25.03.2014 certifying that
the project is under implementation and the sources from which
investment has been made were provided. It was also certified by the
Chartered Accountant that the Unit had raised and utilized more than
50% of the term loan and 50% of the promoter's contribution. The
petitioner also had enclosed the Certificate issued by the Punjab
National Bank dated 25.03.2014, thereby certifying that the project of
the petitioner was appraised for the National Mission on Food
Processing Grant as per the guidelines of the Scheme and also
sanctioned term loan of Rs.150 lakhs. It was also certified by the
Punjab National Bank that an amount of Rs.75.55 lakhs i.e. 50.37% of
the sanctioned term loan had already been disbursed to the petitioner.
Further to that, it was also mentioned that the Punjab National Bank
had no objection in releasing the first installment of the grant, if
Page No.# 16/46
sanctioned by the Government. In addition to that, the sanction of the
term loan of Rs.150 lakhs by the Punjab National Bank was also
certified vide the communication dated 28.01.2014.
27. It is the further case of the petitioner that in spite of submission of
the requisite documents, the concerned Respondent Authority did not
release the first installment of the grant-in-aid. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation on
01.12.2017 before the concerned Respondent Authority for disbursing
the financial assistance. However, as the representation remained un-
redressed the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which
was registered and numbered as WP(C)No.8249/2017. The learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide the judgment and order dated
16.08.2022, disposed of the said writ petition.
28. It is relevant to take note of that in the said proceedings, the
respondent Nos.2, 4, and 5 therein, who are the respondent Nos.3, 5,
and 6 in the present proceedings took a stand in their affidavit that
the application submitted by the petitioner fell in the category of 25
lakhs to 50 lakhs. In the meeting of the Committee held on
19.08.2015, the application of the petitioner could not be placed as it
came to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner had already
availed two other grants under the Ministry of Food Processing
Page No.# 17/46
Industries against the same Unit, and, therefore, another application
seeking financial assistance was not permissible under the National
Mission on Food Processing Scheme. It was also mentioned in the
affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.2, 4, and 5 therein that the
application submitted by the petitioner was incomplete, and by the
time the necessary documents including the affidavit in support of the
application were submitted, the Scheme had already been withdrawn.
29. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said
writ petition, thereby granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a
detailed representation within 4(four) weeks enclosing a certified copy
of the said order before the Additional Chief Secretary to the
Government of Assam In-charge of the Industries and Commerce
Department, ventilating its grievances in the matter, and, if such a
representation is filed within the prescribed period, the same be
considered and disposed of in the light of the observations made in
the said order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned Coordinate
Bench, as well as the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench
of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India (UOI) and
Others Vs. Vision Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Others., reported in
(2009) 1 GLT 557 . It was further observed by the learned
Coordinate Bench that upon examination of the representation, if it
was found that the application submitted by the petitioner was a
Page No.# 18/46
genuine one and the same was complete in all respects and submitted
within the period of validity of the Scheme in question, steps be taken
for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner as may be permissible
under the law. Paragraph Nos.10 to 15 of the said judgment passed
by the learned Coordinate Bench being relevant are reproduced
hereinunder:
“10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival
parties and have also gone through the materials available on record.
11. There is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner had in fact
submitted an application seeking grant-in-aid to the tune of Rs.57,24,400/- under the
NMFP scheme. The application submitted by the writ petitioner was duly processed at
the District level authority and was forwarded to the State level agencies for placing the
same before the State Level Committee. It is also the admitted position of fact that the
application of the writ petitioner was not placed before the State Level Committee nor is
there any official communication issued to the petitioner informing the reasons for not
doing so. Subsequently, the departmental authorities have taken a stand by filing
affidavit before this Court that the petitioner was ineligible to avail the grant in aid due
to the earlier financial assistance availed by it from the same Ministry. The petitioner
has, however, disputed such a stand.
12. The rival contentions of the parties would require an enquiry into disputed
questions of facts, which would not be possible in a writ petition. However, this Court is
also of the opinion that once the petitioner had submitted an application, the same
ought to be considered by the departmental authorities in accordance with law and be
disposed of by a reasoned order, which has evidently not been done in this case. Merely
on the basis of the pleadings brought on record, this Court cannot decide the
fate of an application submitted by the petitioner seeking financial assistance under a
scheme of NMFP.
13. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of its application for
grant-in-aid by the appropriate Committee i.e. the State Level Committee,
Page No.# 19/46
notwithstanding the fact that the scheme has since been withdrawn, this Court is of the
opinion that the matter requires proper enquiry at the hands of the concerned
departmental authority, who must consider as to what relief, if any, can be granted to
the petitioner under the law even at this point of time if it is found that the application
submitted by the writ petitioner, complete in all respect, was received during the
currency of the scheme.
14. For the reasons noted herein above, I am of the view that the application
submitted by the writ petitioner seeking financial assistance deserves to be considered
on merit by the appropriate authority. As such, this writ petition is being disposed of by
providing that within four weeks from today the writ petitioner may submit a detail
representation, enclosing a certified copy of this order, before the Additional Chief
Secretary to the Government of Assam, in-charge of Industries and Commerce
Department, ventilating its grievance in the matter. If such a representation is filed
within the prescribed period, the same may be considered on merit and disposed of in
the light of the observations made herein above as well as in the decision rendered in
Vision Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors (supra), within a further period of six months.
15. It is made clear that if on examination of the representation submitted by the
petitioner, the departmental authorities are of the view that the application submitted by
the writ petitioner was a genuine one and the same was complete in all respect and was
also submitted within the period of validity of the scheme in question, in that event,
appropriate steps may be taken for redressal of grievance of the petitioner, as may be
permissible under the law. Whatever be the decision, the
same be intimated to the petitioner through a written communication.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
30. In pursuance thereto, a representation was submitted by the
petitioner on 26.08.2022. In the said representation, it was mentioned
that the petitioner had earlier availed financial assistance from the
th
NMFP for establishment of the original Unit under the 12 Plan,
Page No.# 20/46
(2013-17), but those were not in regard to the same machinery. It is
further mentioned that the claim of subsidy as sought for by the
petitioner was for an expansion of the Unit, as the Scheme had
specifically stated in its guidelines regarding eligibility criteria for
receiving grant-in-aid for upgradation/establishment/modernization of
th
food processing industries during the remainder of the 12 Plan
under the National Mission on Food Processing. It was further stated
in the said representation that the petitioner had applied for
technology upgradation i.e. for installation of new and modern
machinery of the bakery, as well as for expansion of the Unit. It was
also mentioned that a similar stand that was taken by the
departmental authorities in the case of Vision Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) was rejected by the learned Division Bench of this Court, and
the said order has also been upheld by the Supreme Court.
31. Pursuant to the said representation submitted by the petitioner,
the Managing Director of the Assam Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation has written a letter to the Under Secretary,
Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India, wherein
it was mentioned that the NMFP Scheme was delinked for financial
assistance from the Central Government, as per the letter dated
27.03.2015 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Food Processing
Industries, addressed to the Chief Secretary of Assam, wherein it was
Page No.# 21/46
mentioned that as the Scheme had been delinked for financial
assistance from Government of India in 2015-16, steps were to be
taken to ensure release of funds to all ongoing projects approved by
SLEC including committed liabilities from State resources.
32. The Managing Director, AIIDC also referred to another
communication dated 07.07.2015, issued by the Additional Secretary
in the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India,
addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Industries and Commerce Department to make necessary
provision in the State budget to meet the committed liabilities, and
provide financial support to continued activities of the NMFP. It was
further mentioned in the said communication that the Industries and
Commerce Department, Government of Assam had made budgetary
provisions under the Scheme for an amount of Rs.100 lakhs in the
year 2016-17 and Rs.987.15 lakhs in the year 2017-18 to clear the
total committed liabilities amounting to Rs.1087.15 lakhs against the
proposal approved by the SLEC and disbursed to the Units
subsequently. In that regard, it was mentioned that the
communication dated 07.07.2015 issued by the Additional Secretary,
Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India did not
mention about the fate of the proposals under the Scheme who had
applied within the time period of the validity of the Scheme, but the
Page No.# 22/46
application could not be processed further due to further scrutiny, etc.
Under such circumstances, the Ministry of Food Processing Industries,
Government of India was requested to provide necessary inputs.
33. Nothing has been placed before this Court as to what transpired
pursuant to the communication dated 24.02.2023. Be that as it may,
the records reveal that on 15.12.2023, the claim of the petitioner was
rejected by passing a speaking order which is challenged in the
instant proceedings. It is on the above facts, the present writ petition
was filed on 25.01.2024.
34. The record reveals that vide the order dated 06.09.2024, notice
was issued, making it returnable by 6 weeks.
35. The Respondent Nos.2, 3, and 6 have filed a joint affidavit-in-
opposition on 20.05.2024, whereby the affidavit-in-opposition filed by
the said respondents in WP(C)No.8249/2017 was brought on record.
A perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said
respondents in WP(C)No.8249/2017 reveals that the petitioner had
already received an amount of Rs.49.50 lakhs as financial assistance
for setting up the Unit in the past from the Ministry of Food
Processing Industries, Government of India, vide sanction No.7-
10/2011-Bakery, dated 25.04.2012, which was declared by way of an
affidavit dated Nil submitted by the petitioner one day after the
Page No.# 23/46
petitioner submitted the application. It was also mentioned that when
the initial enquiry was made by the Functional Manager, DIC, Cachar,
Silchar, on 27.03.2014, the fact of already receiving a grant-in-aid by
the Unit was not known to the Enquiry Officer. Further to that, as the
affidavit was subsequently submitted by the petitioner that
necessitated a thorough investigation as the amount of grant received
as well as the eligibility for another grant for
Upgradation/Establishment/Modernization of the said Unit of the
petitioner. It was also stated that there was a requirement of a
thorough scrutiny of the documents, verification of machineries
existed thereupon prior to expansion, and the machineries
existed/proposed for after the expansion by way of field verification.
Additionally, there was also a requirement to verify the payment
documents of the machineries and other eligible components, and
those which were purchased through the bank reflecting bank
payment statements etc., as proof of making payment through bank
along with the bank statements. Further to the above in the said
affidavit, it was also stated that during the process of verification,
certain other documents were required to be submitted by the
petitioner, which were submitted by the petitioner vide a forwarding
letter without mentioning any date. These documents which were
submitted were:
a) Surety bond without mentioning any date of signing.
Page No.# 24/46
However, the same was notarized and signed on 16.04.2015;
b) A certificate from the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner
certifying about the investment made by the petitioner for
expansion-cum-modernization dated 16.04.2015. The Certificate
also stated that the petitioner's unit had gone into commercial
production after expansion only on 20.03.2015, though the Unit
proposed to go for commercial production in the month of
October 2014.
c). A list of Unsecured Loan dated 16.04.2015, certified by
the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner.
d). A Certificate dated Nil issued by the Punjab National Bank
certifying the release of Rs.150.00 lakhs to Ms. Bibha Bakers, the
petitioner.
36. The petitioner thereupon submitted an Affidavit-in-Reply on
16.07.2014. The petitioner enclosed the Affidavit-in-Reply which was
filed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition in WP(C)No.8249/2017. In addition
to that the petitioner enclosed the communication issued by the
Managing Director, AIIDC to the Joint Secretary, Industries Commerce
and Public Enterprise Department, Government of Assam dated
17.03.2023.
37. A perusal of the communication dated 17.03.2023 would reveal
Page No.# 25/46
that the Managing Director, AIIDC informed that the application of the
petitioner was forwarded to the Mission Director NMFP by the General
Manager, District Industries and Commerce Center, Cachar, Sichar on
29.03.2014, (received on 02.04.2014) during the currency of the
Scheme under consideration. It was further mentioned that the
application submitted by the petitioner was not complete in all
respects. The duly notarized Surety Bond and the Chartered
Accountant Certificate as per Clause 8.1 of the Relevant Guidelines
(Scheme) were prepared on 16.04.2015 and submitted subsequently,
i.e. after the currency of the Scheme.
In addition to the above, it was also informed vide the said
communication that an amount of Rs.49.50 lakhs was sanctioned vide
the letter dated 25.04.2012 for setting up of the Unit in the past, and
the said aspect was informed vide an affidavit dated 28.03.2014.
Further to that, the proposal which was submitted by the petitioner
was for upgradation programme of the Scheme and it was not known
against which machineries the Unit had already availed the
Government of India grant and for which machineries the petitioner
had applied under the Scheme. It is further mentioned that as the CA
Certificate mentioning the details was prepared on 16.04.2015 only
and presented subsequently, for which a thorough scrutiny of the
document were felt necessary for non-duplication.
Further to the above, it was mentioned in the said communication
Page No.# 26/46
that receiving of funds earlier did not disqualify the Industrial Unit
from availing benefits under the Scheme. The Unit was eligible for
availing benefits under the Scheme under the Technology
Upgradation/Modernization for additional machineries installed for
Upgradation /Modernization.
38. The Respondent No.4 had also filed an affidavit-in- opposition on
30.01.2025. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that
the NEDFI does not have any responsibility or role under the National
Mission on Food Processing. The said Scheme of technology
upgradation /establishment/modernization of food processing
industries is under the Ministry of Food Processing Industries of the
Government of India. Further to that, the NEDFI is also not a
designated Nodal Agency under the said Scheme.
39. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner on 05.12.2025,
wherein the petitioner had enclosed the photocopy of the original
Surety Bond dated 28.03.2014.
40. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of that vide the
order dated 11.11.2023, this Court sought for the records in respect
to the application submitted by the petitioner and the records were
produced before this Court, which were perused on 07.02.2026, as
well as on 17.02.2026.
Page No.# 27/46
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION :
41. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf
of the parties, whose submissions were based upon the respective
pleadings, and, as such, for the sake of brevity, this Court would not
like to repeat the same.
42. The issue which is involved in the instant proceedings is as to
whether the Respondents were justified in rejecting the petitioner’s
claim on the grounds and reasons assigned in the speaking order
dated 15.12.2023, and, if not, what directions are required to be
passed?
43. For deciding the aforesaid issue, let this Court take note of the
reasons assigned as to why the petitioner's claim proposal was
rejected vide the impugned order dated 15.12.2023.
44. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 would show
that the proposal so submitted by the petitioner was submitted within
the validity of the Scheme, and it was mentioned that the application
of the petitioner was not complete in all respects. It was further
mentioned that 2(two) documents were not submitted along with the
application submitted by the petitioner, and the petitioner was duly
informed on several occasions by telephonic calls. The 2(two)
documents which were not submitted as mentioned in the impugned
Page No.# 28/46
order dated 15.12.2023 were:
(a). Duly notarized Surety Bond executed by the beneficiary company
on non-judicial stamp paper of not less than Rs.100/- ( as per
Appendix-A of the Scheme guidelines).
(b). Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Appendix-C of the
Scheme guidelines.
It was further mentioned that during the process of verification, the
petitioner submitted various documents without mentioning any date.
The documents which were submitted by the petitioner were:
(a). Surety Bond without mentioning any date of signing.
However, the same was notarized and signed on 16.04.2015;
(b). A Certificate dated 16.04.2015 from the Chartered
Accountants certifying the investments made by the petitioner
for expansion-cum-modernization;
(c). A list of unsecured loans dated 16.04.2015, certified by the
Chartered Accountant of the petitioner;
(d). A certificate without any date issued by the Punjab National
Bank certifying the release of Rs.150 lakhs to the petitioner.
45. In the impugned order, it is opined that though the petitioner
submitted the application for grant-in-aid under the NMFP on
26.03.2014, but many of the required documents were submitted very
late on 16.04.2015. The authorities though processed the application
Page No.# 29/46
of the petitioner, but the same could not be placed before the
Competent Authority for consideration. Further to that by the time the
petitioner had submitted the documents on 16.04.2015, the Ministry
of Food Processing Industries, Government of India, had delinked the
Scheme from the Union Budget w.e.f. 01.04.2015 vide the letter dated
27.03.2015. It was further observed in the impugned order that the
Ministry of Food Processing Industry, Government of India had
clarified vide the communication dated 27.03.2015 that no
Government of India funds would be available for implementation of
the NMFP by the States from the financial year 2015-16 and onwards
in view of the de-linking of the NMFP from financial support of the
Government of India and the Government of Assam was, therefore,
requested to ensure funds for all ongoing projects approved by the
SLEC including the committed liabilities from the State resources and
the State Government, therefore, to take a decision regarding
implementation of NMFP Scheme or otherwise, with effect from
01.04.2015 onwards.
It was also observed in the impugned order that neither in the
communication dated 27.03.2015 nor in the report of the Committee
constituted vide a Notification dated 19.10.2016, there was a
recommendation for payment of Financial Assistance under NMFP
Scheme against those proposals which were under process, but not
approved by the empowered Committee.
Page No.# 30/46
It was further observed in the impugned order that as the
processing of the proposal of the petitioner was not complete for late
submission of the required documents by the petitioner on
16.04.2015, as such, there was no committed liability created against
the proposal under the Scheme. It was under such circumstances, the
impugned order was passed, finding no reasonable ground to consider
the application of the petitioner for availing incentives under the NMFP
for the remainder of the 12th Plan i.e. 2013-14 to 2016-17, and
subsequently delinked by the Government of India, Ministry of Food
and Processing Industries, in March 2015.
46. From the above analysis of the impugned order, it is, therefore,
seen that on account of non-submission of two documents as referred
to hereinabove, i.e. the duly notarized Surety Bond as well as the
Chartered Accountant Certificate, the petitioner's application was not
considered. It further transpires that on account of certain documents
which have been submitted lately on 16.04.2015 i.e. pursuant to the
communication issued by the Government of India dated 27.03.2015,
the petitioner's application could not be processed.
47. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of
Clause 9 of the Relevant Guidelines, which specifically mentions about
the documents which are required to be submitted. A perusal of the
Page No.# 31/46
documents which have been mentioned at Sub-Clauses (ii) to (xviii) of
Clause 9 of the Relevant Guidelines would not show that there is no
requirement of submission of a duly notarized Surety Bond in
Appendix- A as well as the CA Certificate in Appendix-C.
48. This Court had duly perused the records of the application
submitted by the petitioner so produced during the course of the
hearing. A perusal of the records would show that the documents
which has been mentioned at Sub-Clauses (ii) to (xvii) of Clause 9 of
the Relevant Guidelines have been duly enclosed to the Application so
submitted by the Petitioner on 26.03.2014. In addition to that, it is
also seen that the affidavit which is required to be submitted in terms
with Clause 9 (xviii) of the Relevant Guidelines was also submitted on
28.03.2014.
49. This Court also finds it very pertinent to take note of that though
in the impugned order dated 15.12.2013, it is mentioned that a
Certificate without any date issued by the Punjab National Bank
certifying the release of Rs.150 lakhs to the petitioner was provided
subsequently, but a perusal of the records as well as the application
so submitted by the petitioner clearly shows that the Punjab National
Bank's Appraisal Certificate in Annexure IV dated 25.03.2014 was
already there along with the application, and further to that, the
Page No.# 32/46
sanction of the cash credit limit of Rs.25 lakhs to Rs.35 lakhs and
fresh term loan of Rs.150 lakhs favouring the petitioner, dated
28.01.2014, was also a part of the application dated 26.03.2014.
50. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of as to what
are the documents which are necessary for the release of the first and
second installments. The said aspect is duly mentioned in Clause 8 of
the Relevant Guidelines which had already been quoted hereinabove.
51. From a perusal of Clause 8.1, which relates to the release of the
first installment, it is stipulated that the first installment of grant
would be released after the firm had utilized 50% of the term loan as
well as the 50% of the promoter's contribution, and on production of
4(four) documents i.e. (i). Duly notarized Surety Bond to be executed
by the beneficiary on non-judicial stamp paper of not less than
Rs.100/- in Appendix-A. (ii). Duly notarized affidavit to be executed by
the beneficiary company on non-judicial stamp paper of not less than
Rs.100 in Appendix-B. (iii). Bank Certificates certifying that they have
released 50% of the term loan and had no objection on release of the
first installment of the grant being provided by the State/Union
Territories in Annexure-IV and (iv). The CA Certificate in Appendix-C.
52. The said Clause 8.1 of the Relevant Guidelines also stipulates
that based upon the CA Certificate, the competent authority as
Page No.# 33/46
designated by the SLEC would arrive at the eligible amount of grant
and release 50% of the eligible amount as first installment, subject to
the availability of other requisite documents as per the Scheme
Guidelines. In other words, it is only for the purpose of release of the
first installment, the documents mentioned in Clause 8.1 are
necessary.
53. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of
that the Relevant Guidelines apparently makes a clear distinction as
regards the documents necessary to be submitted for consideration of
the proposal and release of the grant. The documents which are
required to be submitted as per Clause 9 are those documents which
are to be filed at the time of submission of the application, whereas
documents which are to be submitted in terms with Clause 8 relates
to documents which are to be submitted for the purpose of release of
the first installment as well as the second installment, inasmuch as
Clause 8.1 relates to the release of first installment and Clause 8.2
relates to release of the second installment.
54. It is also very apposite herein to take note of that the application
which was filed by the petitioner on 26.03.2014 was forwarded on
29.03.2014, and it was only on 27.03.2015 that the NMFP Scheme
was delinked by the Government of India w.e.f. 01.04.2015.
Page No.# 34/46
55. Under such circumstances, there appears to be no reason as to
why the petitioner's application was not at all considered, inasmuch
as for the purpose of consideration of the said application, the
documents which were necessary were only the documents which has
been mentioned in Clause 9 and all such documents were available
with the respondents as on 29.03.2014 when the same were
forwarded by the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce
Department to the State Mission Director. It is also relevant at this
stage to observe that the State Mission Director received the
documents on 02.04.2014 as would be apparent from the
communication dated 17.03.2023 issued by the Managing Director
AIDC to the Joint Secretary, Industries and Commerce and Public
Enterprise Department of the Government of Assam. The receipt of
the application was almost one year prior to delinking the NMFP by
the Government of India.
56. At this stage, let this Court take note of the stand taken by the
State Respondents in their affidavit filed in WP(C) No.8249/2017
wherein it was averred that there was a requirement for further
scrutiny and verification. The records of the present case as well as
the records so produced do not show that the respondents carried out
any scrutiny or verification though it was the absolute responsibility of
the Official respondents to do so. It was mentioned that the petitioner
Page No.# 35/46
had submitted the affidavit as required in terms with clause 9 (xviii) of
the Relevant Guidelines after the enquiry was conducted by the
Functional Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre. The
said aspect is irrelevant inasmuch as, what is relevant is that on
29.03.2014, the respondent No.6 had duly certified that all documents
have been submitted and the same was received by the State Mission
Director on 02.04.2014. It, therefore, appears that on account of the
inaction on the part of the concerned respondent Authority, there was
delay in carrying out the formalities as enshrined in the Relevant
Guidelines for processing the petitioner’s proposal and by the time the
concerned respondents woke up the Government of India had
delinked the NMFP w.e.f 01.04.2015 and directed the State
Respondents to ensure that the committed liabilities are taken care of
by the State of Assam. It also appears from the conduct of the
Respondents that in order to avoid the liability, the State Respondents
have rejected the claim of the proposal of the petitioners.
57. This Court also finds it relevant at this stage to observe that the
impugned speaking order dated 15.12.2013 is unreasonable for the
reason that the grounds of rejection of the petitioner’s proposal are
based upon extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The reasons for
opining so would be apparent from the discussion hereinunder:
The language employed in Appendix-A to the Relevant Guidelines
Page No.# 36/46
would show that the Surety Bond is required to be submitted post the
sanction issued by the Government. In other words, it is only after
consideration as to whether the beneficiary/ petitioner herein is
entitled to the grant-in-aid and there being a sanction order, the
Surety Bond is required to be submitted for release of the said
amount.
58. Be that as it may, the records further show that on 28.03.2014,
the Surety Bond in Appendix-A duly signed by Director of the
petitioner’s company was submitted. A further perusal of the Surety
Bond so submitted would show that there are various blank spaces
which could have been filled up, after the sanction is granted, post
the consideration of entitlements on the basis of the document
submitted in terms with the Clause 9 of the Relevant Guidelines.
59. Now let this Court take note of the Certificate which is required
to be submitted by the Chartered Accountant. The Chartered
Accountant Certificate is to be issued as per Appendix- C, for the
release of the first installment. The said document is not required in
terms of Clause 9 of the Relevant Guidelines for consideration as
regards the entitlement of the benefits of the Scheme. Rather, it is
only required in terms of Clause 8.1 for release of the first installment.
A perusal of Clause 8.1 would show that based upon the CA
Page No.# 37/46
Certificate, the competent authority as designated by the SLEC would
arrive at the eligible amount of the grant-in-aid and release 50% of
the eligible amount as first installment, subject to availability of all
other requisite documents as per the Relevant Guidelines, i.e. Clause
9. In other words, the said Certificate of the Chartered Accountant is
required to be submitted after the SLEC's decision and the approval
received from the Government of India and at the time of release of
the first installment.
Be that as it may, it is also seen from the records that were
produced that the petitioner had submitted a certificate of the
Chartered Accountant dated 25.03.2014, which is in the format
provided in Appendix-C. The said Certificate dated 25.03.2014 clearly
mentions that the Unit has raised and utilized more than 50% of the
term loan and 50% of the promoter's contribution.
60. Now let this Court take note of the documents which were
submitted subsequently i.e. on 16.04.2015 reference of which have
been made in the impugned order dated 15.12.2023. The documents
submitted were:
(a) A Surety Bond which was notarized on 16.04.2015;
(b) A Certificate dated 16.04.2015 issued by the Chartered
Accountant certifying the investments made by the petitioner for
expansion-cum-modernisation;
Page No.# 38/46
(c) A list of unsecured loan dated 16.04.2015;
(d) A certificate issued by the Punjab National Bank certifying
release of Rs.150 Lakhs to the petitioner.
61. It is apposite herein to mention that in view of the fact that
the Petitioner had already submitted the Surety Bond dated
28.03.2014, there was no necessity for submission of the Surety Bond
which was notarized on 16.04.2015. Apart from that as already
observed above, the requirement for the Surety Bond is at the stage
of release of the 1st Installment which is subsequent to the grant of
sanction. The grant of sanction would only arise after the
consideration of the application. Under such circumstances rejection
of the Petitioner’s proposal for the submission of the Surety Bond on
16.04.2015 was an irrelevant consideration having no nexus with the
role assigned to the concerned respondent Authorities for
consideration of the proposal.
The Second document is the Certificate dated 16.04.2015 issued
by the Chartered Accountant is available in the records produced. A
perusal of the said Certificate would show that the contents of the
said Certificate is in terms with Clause 8.2 (ii) of the Relevant
Guidelines, inasmuch as, the said Certificate categorically mentions
that 100% of the promoters contribution and 100% of the Term Loan
have been utilised. This Certificate is required to be submitted after
Page No.# 39/46
the Release of the First Installment. Under such circumstances, the
submission of the said Certificate dated 16.04.2015 could not have
been a reason to reject the proposal of the Petitioner for consideration
of the entitlement. The said aspect also clearly shows complete non-
application of mind.
The Third document that is a compilation of incurred loans as
on 16.04.2015 had no relevance at all for the purpose of consideration
of the proposal.
The Fourth document i.e. the Certificate issued by the Punjab
National Bank is a document required in terms with Clause 8.1 (iii) of
the Relevant Guidelines for the purpose of the release of the First
Installment having no nexus with the consideration as to whether the
Petitioner was entitled to the grant-in-aid.
62. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that submission of the
four documents on or after 16.04.2015 had nothing to do with the
consideration of the petitioner’s entitlement to the sanction of the
grant-in-aid under NMFP. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that
the Relevant Guidelines differentiate and distinguishes the two stages
i.e. stage consideration for entitlement of the sanction for grant-in-aid
under the NMFP and stage for release of the grant. Under such
circumstances, the reasons so assigned in the Speaking Order to
reject the proposal as well as the representation are based upon
Page No.# 40/46
irrelevant and extraneous considerations. In this regard, this Court
finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Soni Vs. Union of India reported in (1980) 4 SCC 544
wherein the Supreme Court observed that it is an unwritten Rule of
Law, constitutional and administrative that whenever a decision
making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a
statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind
to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and
the remote.
63. In the above perspective, this Court also finds it relevant to take
note of the observations of the His Lordships A. Pasayat J (as His
Lordship then was) in the case of Rameshwar Prasad (VI) Vs.
Union of India reported in (2006) 2 SCC 1 wherein His Lordships
explained the application and understanding of the Wednesbury
Principles of Reasonable. His Lordship observed that a decision will be
said to be unreasonable in Wednesbury sense if (i) it is based upon
wholly irrelevant material or wholly irrelevant consideration (ii) it has
ignored a very relevant material which it should have taken into
consideration; or (iii) it is so absurd that no sensible person could ever
have reached it.
64. The above principles if applied, qua the facts of the present case
Page No.# 41/46
would clearly show that the impugned Speaking Order dated
15.12.2023 suffers from taking into consideration irrelevant factors as
discussed above and further had omitted to take into consideration
that the documents which were submitted as per the Relevant
Guidelines and received by the State Mission Director on 02.04.2014.
Under such circumstances, the Speaking Order is unreasonable as it
fails the test of Wednesbury's Principles of Reasonableness.
65. In addition to the above, it is also apposite herein to observe that
the action on the part of the concerned Respondent authorities to
deny the entitlement to the petitioner inspite of the fact that the
Petitioner had submitted the requisite documents and then in order to
putting the blame upon the Petitioner for no fault of the Petitioner, is
an act which suffers from malice in law. Under such circumstances, it
is the opinion of this Court that appropriate writ, direction and order
is/are required to be passed in the present proceedings.
66. Another aspect which also has relevance in the present
proceedings is the aspect pertaining to the principles of Promissory
Estoppel. Law is well settled as to what is meant by the Doctrine of
Promissory Estoppel. Historically evolved in common law, Promissory
Estoppel is a doctrine whose foundation is that an unconscionable
departure by one party from the subject matter of an assumption
Page No.# 42/46
which may be of fact or law, present or future, and which has been
adopted by the other party as the basis of some course of conduct,
act or omission, should not be allowed to pass muster.
67. The law of Promissory Estoppel in India is same but with a slight
difference—Promissory Estoppel in India can be the basis of an
independent cause of action in which detriment need to be proved. It
is enough that a party has acted upon the representation made.
68. In the backdrop of the above principles, the question arises as to
whether the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel would come to play to
provide any relief to be granted in favour of the Petitioner. The facts
narrated above would show that based upon the guidelines of NMFP
as well as the Relevant Guidelines the Petitioner took steps for
modernization /expansion of its bakery. In terms with the Relevant
Guidelines, the Petitioner submitted its application which was received
by the State Mission Director on 02.04.2014 much prior to the
delinking of the NMFP by the Government of India. The records
further reveal that the petitioner based upon the promises made had
taken a Term Loan from the Bank and used the promoter’s
contribution for the purpose of upgradation of its bakery. The
documents which were submitted on or after 16.04.2015 also show
that the Petitioner had purchased new machineries as certified by the
Page No.# 43/46
Chartered Accountant. The various bills for purchase of the
machineries are also part of the records so produced. Under such
circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled to so much of the amount as
permissible under the NMFP guidelines as well as the Relevant
Guidelines.
69. Another aspect which is of relevance is the communication dated
27.03.2015 issued by the Ministry of Food Processing whereby there
was a direction upon the State of Assam that the State of Assam was
required to release funds to the ongoing projects approved by the
SLEC as well as ‘Committed Liabilities’ from the State Resources after
01.04.2015. The term 'Committed Liabilities' as mentioned in the
communication dated 27.03.2015 would encompass the cases of all
those persons/entities as mentioned in Clause 3 of the Relevant
Guidelines who have changed their position being influenced by the
representations made in the NMFP Guidelines and the Relevant
Guidelines on the basis of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. In the
further opinion of this Court, the proposal submitted by the Petitioner,
in view of the observations made in the preceding paragraph would
come within the ambit of the term 'Committed Liabilities'.
CONCLUSION:
70. Accordingly, this Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ
petition with the following observations and directions:
Page No.# 44/46
(i). The impugned order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the
Commissioner, Department of Industries and Commerce,
Government of Assam, being unreasonable and arbitrary is in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly the
impugned Speaking Order dated 15.12.2023 is set aside and
quashed.
(ii). A perusal of the records, clearly show that the petitioner
has duly submitted all the documents as required in Clause 9 of
the Relevant Guidelines prior to forwarding of the Petitioner’s
application by the General Manager, Industries and Commerce
Department, Silchar, to the State Mission Director.
(iii). The petitioner being encouraged by the NMFP Scheme,
had taken a term loan and also invested capital, thereby changing
its course and, therefore, the respondents herein are estopped by
the Principles of Promissory Estoppels from denying the petitioner,
the benefits under the NMFP Scheme of grant-in-aid subject to
further consideration/verifications as regards the quantum.
(iv). The claim of the Petitioner comes within the ambit of
‘Committed Liabilities’ as mentioned in the communication dated
27.03.2015 issued by the Secretary, Ministry of Food Processing,
Government of India to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Assam.
(v). Accordingly, this Court directs the Respondent Nos.2 and
Page No.# 45/46
3 to take immediate steps for setting up a Committee in
consultation with the Respondent No.1 to evaluate the application
submitted by the petitioner on 26.03.2014 which was forwarded
to the Respondent No.5 on 29.03.2014, and thereupon take a
decision as regards the petitioner's entitlement for sanction of the
grant-in-aid in terms with the NMFP Guidelines and the Relevant
Guidelines.
(vi). This Court further observes and directs that while
making such evaluation by the Committee to be constituted by
the Respondents herein as directed above, the Committee shall
duly take into consideration the observations made hereinabove
that it is only for the release of the first installment or the second
installment, the documents mentioned in Clause 8.1 and 8.2
would be essential and not for the purpose of considering as to
whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant-in-aid.
(vii). For the sake of clarity, this Court observes that the
present adjudication is in relation to the rejection of the
petitioner's proposal, the legality and validity of the impugned
order dated 15.12.2023 as well as whether the petitioner is
entitled to claim benefits under NMFP Guidelines and the Relevant
Guidelines. This Court has not decided as to what quantum of
grant-in-aid, the petitioner would be entitled to. The same shall
depend on the decision of the Committee so directed to be
Page No.# 46/46
constituted hereinabove.
(viii). The above exercise be completed within a period of 6(six)
months from today.
71. The records which have been produced before this Court is
returned back to Mr. B Gogoi, the learned Addl. AG, Assam.
JUDGE
Shivani
Gautam
Digitally signed by Shivani
Gautam
Date: 2026.05.25 13:28:45
+05'30'
Comparing Assistant