Authority directed to decide pending representations for industrial capital subsidy within a stipulated timeframe.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered as a Small Scale Unit and Micro Enterprise in Rajnandgaon, applied for industrial subsidies under the "Industrial Policy 2019-24" following an expansion of its modular furniture manufacturing unit

While Respondent No. 2 allowed the claim for ‘Interest Subsidy’ on 17.11.2022, it declined the ‘Capital Subsidy’ citing a pending "Audit Serial No. 2.22.2"

The petitioner, asserting that the nature of the audit objection remained unclear, submitted multiple representations and reminders between July 2024 and January 2026 seeking the release of the subsidy

Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the authorities, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the rejection and a writ of mandamus for the disposal of pending representations

1. Whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction to direct a time-bound disposal of the petitioner's pending representations regarding the withheld Capital Subsidy

The Court's jurisdiction was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue directions for the enforcement of legal rights

The substantive claim was governed by the "Industrial Policy 2019-24," which provides for Capital and Interest Subsidies to eligible industrial units

The court further applied the administrative law principle that statutory or executive authorities must decide pending representations within a reasonable timeframe, especially when such representations concern financial entitlements under state policies

The Court observed that the petitioner’s primary grievance stemmed from the lack of clarity and finality regarding the denial of Capital Subsidy due to an internal audit objection

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the subsidy claim or the validity of the audit objection, the Court focused on the procedural delay in addressing the petitioner’s grievances

Given that the counsel for the State and other respondents raised no objection to a limited direction for the disposal of the pending representations, the Court determined that an expedited administrative decision would be the most appropriate remedy

This approach allows the executive authority to exercise its primary jurisdiction to resolve the factual dispute regarding the audit serial number before any further judicial intervention

It directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner’s applications and reminders dated 18.07.2024, 21.10.2024, and 27.01.2026 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the court’s order

All pending applications were also disposed of accordingly