Industrial policy benefit depends on timely expansion compliance; extension order recalled and writ relief refused.

The Court re-examined an earlier order extending time to avail an industrial policy benefit and recalled it after finding that the policy did not provide for such enlargement of time. On the substantive claim, the existing unit's entitlement under the Uttarakhand industrial policy notifications depended on meeting the prescribed expansion and commencement timeline. As that condition was not satisfied, no effective relief could be granted. The review was allowed, the earlier order was set aside, and the writ claim failed for non-compliance with the stipulated policy requirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order granting extension of time for availing the policy benefit was liable to be reviewed and recalled; (ii) whether the writ petitioner was entitled to relief under the industrial policy notifications for the existing unit at Doiwala.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order granting extension of time for availing the policy benefit was liable to be reviewed and recalled.

Analysis: The earlier order was challenged on the ground that the policy did not contemplate any mechanism for extension of time and, therefore, the Court had no competence to enlarge the period fixed for conversion and expansion. In view of the concession that the writ petition could be heard on other grounds, the earlier order was re-examined and recalled so that the matter could be decided afresh.

Conclusion: The review was allowed and the earlier order was recalled.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to relief under the industrial policy notifications for the existing unit at Doiwala.

Analysis: The claim depended on the benefit of the policy reflected in the office memorandum and the subsequent notification regime governing industrial estates in Uttarakhand. Even assuming the petitioner's unit ought to have been placed in the category relied upon by it, the petitioner, being an existing industry, was required to undertake expansion and commence production within the stipulated time. As that requirement was not satisfied, no effective relief could be granted.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entitled to relief and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was set aside in review, but the substantive writ claim failed because the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions necessary to obtain the policy benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A policy benefit dependent on compliance with a stipulated expansion deadline cannot be granted where the eligible unit has not satisfied the prescribed condition within time, and an earlier order enlarging such time may be recalled if it was beyond the court's competence under the policy.

---