Direction to Formally Adjudicate Claims for Capital Subsidy Under Industrial Incentive Policy via Speaking Order

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, moved the High Court seeking a direction for the payment of a capital subsidy amounting to Rs. 15,89,000/- under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011

The petitioner claimed eligibility for both pre-production and post-production incentives based on the installation of plant and machinery

Although the petitioner had submitted a representation to the authorities on January 3, 2023 (Annexure-P/9), it remained pending without resolution

During proceedings, the petitioner sought liberty to file a fresh representation to expedite the claim

1. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to adjudicate the petitioner’s claim for capital subsidy under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011

2. Whether the court should direct a time-bound disposal of the petitioner’s administrative representation regarding statutory incentives

The court's decision is governed by the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, which provides the framework for granting capital subsidies and incentives to industrial units

The court also applied the principles of natural justice and administrative law, specifically the duty of state authorities to pass "speaking and reasonable orders" when deciding the entitlements of citizens or commercial entities under state policies

The court did not adjudicate the merits of the subsidy claim itself, noting that the primary responsibility to determine eligibility rests with the respondent authorities under the 2011 Policy

It observed that the petitioner’s earlier representation was still pending

Consequently, the court focused on the procedural remedy, determining that the appropriate course of action was to mandate the Additional Chief Secretary (Respondent No. 2) to evaluate the claim.

The court emphasized that this evaluation must involve an "opportunity of hearing" for the petitioner, ensuring that the administrative decision-making process is transparent and legally sound

The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the matter by way of a "speaking and reasonable order" after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The respondent-authorities were instructed to comply with these directions as per the undertaking given by their counsel