REJECTION OF SUBSIDY BASED ON MINOR ADDRESS DISCREPANCIES INVOLVING SURVEY NUMBERS IS ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE.

The Government of India announced a scheme providing a 30% subsidy for individuals establishing leather industries.

The respondent, Globalution Shoes Pvt. Ltd., applied for this subsidy.

The appellants rejected the application on the ground that the address provided in the application did not match the address listed in the certificate issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce.

The respondent challenged this rejection via a writ petition (W.P. No. 13441 of 2019).

The Writ Court ruled in favor of the respondent on November 16, 2022, prompting the Government of India to file this intra-Court appeal.

1. Whether the discrepancy between the address in the subsidy application and the industrial certificate was sufficient grounds to reject the respondent's claim.

2. Whether the Writ Court's order setting aside the rejection and granting relief to the respondent contained any legal infirmity or perversity.

The court applied general principles of administrative law regarding the reasonableness of executive decisions and the doctrine of "substance over form."

It emphasized that administrative rejections must be based on substantive grounds rather than "flimsy" or hyper-technical discrepancies.

The court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to review the legality of the Writ Court's findings.

The Court compared the two addresses in question.

The application address was "No. 2/24, Amman Nagar, Melmonavur, Vellore," while the Department of Industries certificate stated "SF.No.293/2A, Door No. 2/24, Melmonavur Village, Amman Nagar, Vellore..."

The Court observed that the only difference was the addition of the "SF.No." (Survey Number), which did not change the physical identity of the location.

The appellants admitted they were not claiming the existence of two separate entities.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that since the addresses were essentially identical, the rejection was based on a "flimsy ground" and lacked merit.

The Court found that the Writ Court had correctly identified this lack of logic in the rejection.

It held that there was no "infirmity or perversity" in the lower court's decision as the two addresses provided were one and the same.

The rejection of the subsidy was deemed unacceptable, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed with no order as to costs.