W.P.(C)/4174/2019 of HELIONS PHOTO VOLTAIC LIMITED Vs MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFOMATION TECHNOLOGY
Parties
- +W.P.(C) 4174/2019HELIONS PHOTO VOLTAIC LIMITED (PETITIONER)
- MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFOMATIONTECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY (RESPONDENT)
Cites (7)
- AIR 2007 SC 777 (2007) FOLLOWED
- AIR 2004 SC 4324 (2004) FOLLOWED
- AIR 1986 SC 819 (1986) FOLLOWED
Statutes cited (3)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+W.P.(C) 4174/2019HELIONS PHOTO VOLTAIC LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through:MsManeeshaDhir,MsVarshaBanarjee and Mr Kunal Godhwari,Advocates.
versus
MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFOMATIONTECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY
..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUO R R%23.04.2019
CM No.18796/2019
1.Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4174/2019
2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying thatdirections be issued to the Ministry of Electronics and InformationTechnology to disburse the subsidy amount of ₹56,00,00,000/- (Rupees 56 crores). The petitioner claims that it is entitled to the said subsidy under theSpecial Incentive Package.
3.Ms Dhir, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly statesthat the petitioner had filed writ petition before the Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court (being CWP No.22826/2018 captioned ‘Helios Photo VoltaicLtd. v. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others), inter alia, seeking similar
relief. In addition, the petitioner had also challenged the RBI circular dated12.02.2018. She submits that the said petition was withdrawn to avail ofother remedies.
4.The challenge to the RBI circular dated 12.02.2018 has beenauthoritatively settled by the decision of the Supreme Court, and thepetitioner has approached this Court with regard to its second grievance,namely, non disbursal of the subsidy.
5.It is apparent from the order dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Punjaband Haryana High Court in CWP 22826/2018, that the petitioner had soughtwithdrawal of the said petition to approach the National Company LawTribunal. In the aforesaid context, the petition was dismissed as withdrawnwith clarification that it would be open for the petitioner to take recourseto the remedies as may be available to it.
6.Considering that the petitioner had approached the Punjab andHaryana High Court for similar relief as sought in the present petition andhad withdrawn the said petition, this Court does not consider it apposite toentertain this petition. The same is, accordingly, disposed of leaving it openfor the petitioner to either approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court, orto file afresh after seeking appropriate clarification from that Court.
APRIL 23, 2019MK
VIBHU BAKHRU, J