Writ review and legitimate expectation: reimbursement based on reasonableness was required, while factual project-cost findings and interest claim failed.

The Delhi HC held that a reasoned factual apportionment of delay and partial disallowance of project cost would not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent arbitrariness, irrelevant considerations, or unsupported discrimination, so that challenge failed. It also held that, where reimbursement of transportation cost had been promised, the authority had to examine the reasonableness of the actual claim and could not confine payment to a normative rate without proper basis or notice; the matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration and any consequential reimbursement. The claim for interest was rejected because the scheme did not provide for it and no compelling facts justified implying such entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of part of the project cost and the apportionment of delay in commencement of commercial production by the fixation authority were arbitrary or discriminatory. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of actual transportation cost for movement of ammonia from Taluja to Trombay instead of a normative rate. (iii) Whether interest was payable on the amounts found due under the scheme.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of part of the project cost and the apportionment of delay in commencement of commercial production by the fixation authority were arbitrary or discriminatory.

Analysis: The authority had examined the factual material and apportioned the 14 months' delay between the petitioners and the supplier, allowing only part of the overrun. The challenge required a detailed reappraisal of disputed facts, which is not appropriate in writ jurisdiction. No irrelevant material or omission of relevant material was shown, and the differing treatment claimed on the basis of another fertiliser unit was found unsupported on the facts.

Conclusion: The disallowance of part of the project cost was upheld and the petitioners were not granted relief on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to reimbursement of actual transportation cost for movement of ammonia from Taluja to Trombay instead of a normative rate.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioners had been told that transportation cost would be reimbursed, but they were not informed that reimbursement would be confined to a normative basis without examination of actual reasonableness. The authority had not considered whether the claimed cost was reasonable, and the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that actual expenditure, if reasonable, would be reimbursed. In these circumstances, fixation on a normative basis without such examination was held to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to reconsideration and refixation of transportation cost on the basis of reasonableness, with consequential reimbursement if any further amount was found due.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on the amounts found due under the scheme.

Analysis: The scheme did not provide for interest in favour of units receiving differential amounts from the fund, and there were no compelling reasons on the facts of the case to award interest. The existence of interest stipulations against units in other situations did not justify implying a corresponding entitlement in favour of the petitioners.

Conclusion: The claim for interest was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted only on the transportation-cost issue, while the challenge to project-cost disallowance and the claim for interest failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, a reasoned factual determination by the fixation authority will not be interfered with absent arbitrariness, but where reimbursement is promised, the authority must examine the reasonableness of the actual claim and cannot deny relief by imposing a normative basis without notice or justification.

---