Judgment:
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Relying upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court delivered on 2.4.1996 in S.B.C.W. Pet. No. 3253 of 1991, learned counsel Mr. Goyal submitted that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of subsidy in its favour.
2. The above order is based upon the Supreme Court judgment dated 5.12.1995 delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6240 of 1994 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
We agree with her that all the applications filed upto September 30, 1988 should be considered for grant of central investment subsidy provided the said applications were complete in terms of the scheme dated August 26, 1971 as modified from time to time.
3. Accordingly, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all the applications filed before September 30, 1988 may be considered for grant of the central investment subsidy provided the applications were complete under the scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the High Court may keep in view the order passed by the Joint Secretary but shall take its own decision on merits of each case, (emphasis supplied)
4. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition No. 3253 of 1991 and directed that the application of the petitioner, if filed before September 30, 1988, be considered for grant of subsidy.
5. From the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, it is clear that the petitioner in that case, approached this Court earlier way back in 1991 by way of writ petition and the said writ petition was decided on 2.4.1996 after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5.12.1995.
6. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that this petition is filed only in 2001 to be precise on 17.1.2001. Before filing this petition, the petitioner is said to have made an application for grant of central subsidy on 18.3.1997 (Annex.1). Annex. 2, is the Photostat copy of letter dated 16.1.1998 addressed by the respondent RFC. The said letter is a handwritten letter by which the respondent RFC asked the petitioner firm to supply necessary documents at the earliest. By a letter dated 23.1.1998 (Annex. 3), the petitioner has supplied such documents. However, thereafter for a period of nearly 3 years, the petitioner did not do anything in the matter and all of sudden woke up from the slumber on 7.8.2000 and wrote a letter by way of reminder (Annex. 5) to the RFC for releasing the subsidy amount. Thereafter this petition is filed. Thus, there is a gross delay of several years on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court by way of this petition.
7. It is very well settled law that only those persons would get the relief from this Court who are vigilant and not those who slept over their rights for years together. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 5.12.1995 was delivered in civil appeal filed in 1994 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it very clear that the High Court may take its own decision on merits of each case. The learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner filed in 1991 on 2.4.1996 after the passing of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995.
8. Under the circumstances, in my considered opinion, neither the judgment of Supreme Court nor the judgment of this Court would help the petitioner in getting the relief from this Court after lapse of several years. The record and the documents also may not be available and perhaps because of that only, after receiving the reply at Annex. 3 dated 21.3.1998, there was no further correspondence from the respondent RFC in the matter. If the petitioner had approached immediately after writing letter at Annex. 3 in January, 1998, perhaps something could have done but nothing can be done by this Court after more than 3 years of the writing of that letter. The petitioner must blame itself for the gross delay in approaching this Court.
9. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed.