TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lk Powder with each and every manufacturer in Maharashtra was increasing. As a consequence, the manufacturers, including the Petitioner, reduced procurement of milk from the end milk farmers as the demand of the Milk Powder has reduced. In furtherance of the same, the fresh production of milk was also reduced. The milk farmers were accordingly unable to sell their milk which resulted in additional milk in the State of Maharashtra. 3. Respondent No. 1 floated a Scheme for grant of Export Subsidy to clear existing stock within the State and restart the manufacturing/production of milk powder. The intention behind such subsidy was that manufacturers of Milk Powder would sell their existing stock in the international market and start manufacturing fresh milk power and for the same would start procuring milk from the milk farmers. 4. One such Scheme was introduced by Respondent No. 1 by issuing Government Resolution dated 20th July 2018. The said Government Resolution dated 20th July 2018 introduced two schemes, i.e., Scheme A and Scheme B. Scheme A provided for a subsidy for Rs. 50 per metric ton and Rs. 15 per litre of Milk for export of the same in the three months, i.e., Augus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te issued by FSSAI; (6) Letter of Indemnity/Proforma Invoice; (7) Export Invoice and Packing List; (8) Shipping Bills (9) Bills of Lading (10) Confirmation of receipt of the milk powder; (11) Affidavit cum Indemnity Bond certifying that the details as provided are true and correct." 9. As there was no reply from the Respondents to the said Application dated 6th February 2019, a letter dated 22nd March 2019 was submitted to the Respondents thereby once again requesting for the release of the subsidy amount under Government Resolution dated 31st July 2018. 10. In the meanwhile, entities similarly placed to the Petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 747 of 2021, seeking directions to the Respondents to pay them the amount of Export Subsidy. By an Order dated 28th September 2021 this Court directed Respondent No. 1 to take a fresh decision within a period of three months after hearing all concerned. 11. Pursuant to the said Order dated 28th September 2021, Respondent No. 2 called upon all the manufacturers of Milk Powders who had submitted their claim as per the Government Resolu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplemented and the amount be disbursed by 24th April 2023. 15. Despite the Order dated 20th March 2023, the Respondents did not disburse the said amount and filed an Application seeking extension of two months to comply with the Order dated 20th March 2023. The said Application stated that the proposal was submitted to the finance department, that the file was now with the finance department for final approval and that the finance department had requested to take some extension of time from this Court. 16. By an Order dated 26th April 2023, passed by this Court, the said Application for extension was rejected and it was held that there was no question of the finance department approving the file once an Order had been passed by this Court. The Respondents were directed to make payment in accordance with the Order dated 20th March 2023 no later than by 10th May 2023. It was also held that if that was not done, the Court would have proceed to enforce the order, if necessary in contempt. 17. Since the Petitioner was similarly placed as Indapur, it submitted a fresh Application dated 5th June 2023 to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 requesting them to consider its claim, abide by the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isters. The said Government Resolution dated 31st July 2018, if implemented, had substantial financial implications. Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business mandates that, save in exceptional circumstances, under the directions of the Chief Minister, any case in which the Finance Department is required to be consulted under Rule 11, cannot even be discussed by the Council of Ministers unless the Finance Minister has had the opportunity for its consideration. It was further submitted that Rule 11 mandates that, without prior consultation with the Finance Department, no department shall authorise any order which will affect the finance of the State. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 11 however empowers the Council of Ministers to approve the decision even if the Finance Department is not consulted. The Respondents submitted that, in these circumstances, the Government Resolution dated 31st July 2018 cannot be implemented and payment of Export Subsidy cannot be made to be Petitioner. 22. In support of these submissions the Respondents relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in Haridwarsingh V/s. Bagun Sumbrui (1973) 3 SCC 889, wherein Rules of Executive Business made under A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h March 2023 and 26th April 2023 passed by this Court. The Order dated 20th March 2023 reads as under:- 1. The issue in the Petition is narrow. The Petitioner seeks the release of an assured subsidy for the export of milk powder. Prayer (b) of the Petition at pages 17 and 18 read thus: "b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to immediately act upon its order dated 04.03.2022 (Exhibit K) read with report dated 26.05.2022 (Exhibit L) by paying to the Petitioner the amount of Rs. 24,87,50,000/- to which the Petitioner is entitled to under Government Resolution dated 31.07.2018 as has been confirmed by order dated 04.03.2022 (Exhibit K), along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date it became due to the Petitioner till its actual realisation as demonstrated by the table annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit N:" 2. The reference is to a Government Resolution dated 31st July 2018. This has been confirmed by an order of 4th March 2022. We leave aside the question of interest for the present. 3. There is an Affidavit in Reply filed by the Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner seeks the release of an assured subsidy for the export of milk powder. Prayer (b) of the Petition at pages 17 and 18 read thus: "b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to immediately act upon its order dated 04.03.2022 (Exhibit K) read with report dated 26.05.2022 (Exhibit L) by paying to the Petitioner the amount of Rs.24,87,50,000/- to which the Petitioner is entitled to under Government Resolution dated 31.07.2018 as has been confirmed by order dated 04.03.2022 (Exhibit K), along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date it became due to the Petitioner till its actual realisation as demonstrated by the table annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit N:" 2. The reference is to a Government Resolution dated 31st July 2018. This has been confirmed by an order of 4th March 2022. We leave aside the question of interest for the present. 3. There is an Affidavit in Reply filed by the Commissioner, Dairy Development Mumbai on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In paragraph 4, the reference is to a previous order which directed the Principal Secretary, Da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt and submitted the proposal again to finance department on 20/4/2023. Therefore the file is now with finance department for final approval. Finance department has requested to take some extension of time from Hon'ble Court. 3. In the above facts, considering the finance department's abovementioned advice, State Government had requested by sending letter dated 5.4.2023 to Government Pleader, to request Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai to grant two months of time. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit '2' is the copy of letter dated 5.4.2023. 4. If the finance department approve the file, two months of time will be required for disbursement of admissible amount as proposal also requires approval for re-appropriation of funds from one budget head to concern budget head. 5. Therefore, the State Government wants time of two months more for the implementation of order dated 20.3.2023 of this Hon'ble Court. 6. It is therefore, prayed that, a. The time granted to the Applicant to comply the Order dated 20.3.2023 for disbursement the amount be extended by two months more from the date of Order in this Application. b. Such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port Subsidy, it would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if the Petitioner, being identically situated, is not paid the same subsidy, as it would amount to persons identically situated being treated differently, which goes against the very principles of Article 14 of the Constitution. We may observe that once a party like Indapur, who was similarly placed like the Petitioner, was in receipt of such subsidy, which is certainly in the nature of a State largesse, all attributes of reasonableness and fairness emanating from Article 14 of the Constitution of India would stare at the Respondents in similar treatment to be meted out to a person like the Petitioner who was identically placed. A different treatment being meted to the Petitioner would result in breach of the basic rights of the Petitioner of non-discrimination guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution. The subsidy scheme in question is a welfare scheme and which was fully implemented and acted upon in the case of Indapur. Thus, no technical argument would prevent this Court from recognizing such Constitutional rights as conferred on the Petitioner as also recognized by the Scheme....