Review.Pet./17/2026 of M/S SHIVAM PIPE INDUSTRIES, Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 18 May 2026

ORDER

19.05.2026 Heard Mr. P Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Talukdar, the learned Government Advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. H Baruah, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. This is an application seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2025 passed in WP(C)No.6108/2024, whereby this Court was not inclined to interfere with the minutes of the 14th meeting dated 28.02.2022 of the State Level Empowered Committee, whereby the grant of the Eligibility Certificate to the petitioner was rejected.

3. This Court also was not inclined to interfere with the communication dated 05.04.2022 which was impugned in the said writ proceedings.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner had submitted that the present case is a case where the petitioner had discovered new and important materials which the petitioner could not produce at the time of filing of the writ petition or even at the time of delivery of the judgment, inspite of due diligence, and, therefore, the instant review application ought to be allowed. The learned counsel, referred to an Inspection Report dated 23.01.2023 from where it would show that the petitioner Industrial Unit had restarted in the month of August 2022 and started their production in the month of December 2022. It was also mentioned that on 23.01.2023, the petitioner Industrial Unit was in running condition and the production was going on. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the said Inspection Report dated 23.01.2023 the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2025 passed in WP(C)No.6108/2024 be reviewed.

5. This Court had duly taken note of the said Inspection Report, and in the opinion of this Court, the said Inspection Report has no relevance, taking into account that Sub-Clause (14) of Clause 1.8 of Chapter I of the Industrial Policy mandates that it is only when there is a continuous production of 5(five) years from the date of commercial production, the Industrial Unit would be entitled to the various incentives.

6. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that the date of commercial production of the extended Unit was on 21.03.2017.It is also an admitted case that the said Industrial Unit was closed in the year 2020, and on the date of the Inspection which was carried out 30.09.2021, the petitioner's Industrial Unit was closed and the machines were deteriorated and were in a rusty condition.

7. Under such circumstances, the petitioner having not satisfied the requirement of having continuous production for the last 5 (five) years from the date of start of the commercial production, i.e. on 21.03.2017, the Inspection Report would not aid in the case of the petitioners.

8. Further to that, a perusal of the Inspection Report dated 23.01.2023 only mentions that the Inspecting Officials were informed by the personnel that they restarted the Unit on August, 2022 and started their production from December, 2022. The Inspection report does not in any manner state about any documents being placed before the said authorities that the Unit had restarted in August 2022. Even otherwise also, assuming for argument's sake that the Unit had restarted in the month of August 2022, the same does not fulfill the requirement of having 5(five) years of continuous production from 21.03.2017.

9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Inspection

Report cannot be considered as a relevant material for the purpose of reviewing the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2025 passed in WP(C)No.6108/2024. Accordingly, the review application stands rejected.

10. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant