SEENA EMMANUEL v. STATE OF KERALA

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001 THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRD FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033 THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 001 THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER, TALUK INDUSTRIES OFFICE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 582 BY ADV. SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 7267 of 2021 : 2 : JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is stated to be an entrepreneur, impugns Exts.P3 and P9, to the extent to which it has denied her the “Investment Support”, in terms of the Entrepreneur Support Scheme – a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1.

2. Sri.Jacob Sebastian – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently asserted that, as evident from Ext.P2 recommendations made by the 4th respondent, the Unit of his client is engaged in manufacturing rubber sheets and its sale; and therefore, being fully entitled, as recommended therein, for the “Investment Support”. He explained that, however, instead of acceding to the recommendations of the 4th respondent in Ext.P2, the Directorate of Industries and Commerce ('DIC' for short), appears to have conducted another inspection on 18.06.2019 – which, according to him, was at the peak of monsoon season – and to then conclude that there were no manufacturing processes in the Unit and hence that she is not entitled to any support as claimed. He argued that findings in Ext.P8 are untenable because, the said report unequivocally establishes that every machine, for the purpose of manufacture, was available, but that it was not put to its full use, solely because there was no rubber W.P.(C).No. 7267 of 2021 : 3 : tapping activity in full swing during the monsoon season. He thus prayed that Exts.P3 and P9 be quashed, contending that they have been issued in a speculative and conjectural manner, without any factual edifice.

3. Smt.Vidya Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, however, in response, submitted that, as luculent from Ext.P8, the activities of the petitioner do not involve manufacturing rubber sheets at all and that it can only, therefore, be assumed that she is purchasing the sheets and then selling it as a dealer. She argued that this is manifest from the fact that the licence which she has obtained from the Rubber Board is only a “dealership” one, though the said Board grants such licence under three heads; namely, “manufacturing”, “processing” and “dealership”. She contented that, therefore, the impugned orders are without any error.

4. When I evaluate and assess the afore rival positions, it is limpid that there is a clear disputation of facts on one specific issue between the parties. On one hand, the petitioner says that, at the time when the inspection as referred in Ext.P8 was conducted by the 'DIC' on 18.06.2019, “the monsoon was at its peak” and, therefore, that manufacturing processes in her Unit were substantially incapacitated. On the other hand, the 'DIC' takes the stand that, during inspection, it was found that there W.P.(C).No. 7267 of 2021 : 4 : was no manufacturing at all, thus to be only assumed that the petitioner was engaged in dealership of rubber sheets procured from somewhere else.

5. However, the contents of Ext.P8, even if taken to be true, cannot be the sole hypostasis for the opinion as reflected in Exts.P3 and P9 because, as rightly argued by Sri.Jacob Sebastian, it is possible that, during monsoons, the manufacturing processes in the petitioner's Unit had been temporarily stopped. Pertinently, in Ext.P8 or in any other documents which have been produced on record, the respondents do not have a case that they have been able to establish that the petitioner was engaged in purchase of rubber sheets from somewhere else and in its resale; and this is conspicuously absent in all such proceedings.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that, before a drastic opinion, as reflected in Exts.P3 and P9, can be imposed against the petitioner, a proper and comprehensive evaluation of her claims will have to be made by the Authorities. Taking into account the contentions of the petitioner that her Unit did not function on 18.06.2019, on account of the monsoons, I am certain that a fresh inspection and enquiry have to be conducted by the competent Authority, before Exts.P3 and P9 can be allowed to operate. W.P.(C).No. 7267 of 2021 : 5 : In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition with the following directions: (a) The competent Authority of the 'DIC' is hereby directed to conduct a fresh inspection of the petitioner's Unit without any avoidable delay and finalise a fresh report de hors Ext.P8. This shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) Based on the report to be thus obtained, the competent Authority of the 'DIC' – which may be the 3rd respondent or any other Authority – will hear the petitioner and take a final decision on her claim for “Investment Support” as per Ext.P1 Scheme, within a period of one month thereafter. This shall be done, de hors Exts.P3 and P9, and without being in any manner influenced by its contents. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE W.P.(C).No. 7267 of 2021 : 6 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7267/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(a) Exhibit R2(b) Exhibit R2(c) Exhibit R2(d) Exhibit R2(e) A COPY OF THE ENTERPRENEUR SUPPORT SCHEME 2012 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDING REPORT DATED 12-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE FOURT RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-08-2018 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-07- 2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05-01- 2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-02- 2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26-03-2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DIC/16305/2018-FC2 DATED 02-11-2018 FROM THE DIRECTOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DIC/16305/2018-FC2 DATED 28-02-2019 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT DATED 18.06.2019 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF COMMITTEE HELD ON 01.10.2019 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C1/1950/19 DATED 04.11.2019 ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE