Sbt Textiles Private Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Sbt Textiles Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner sought directions from the Court to the respondent authorities to decide their appeal dated January 28, 2026, which challenged an order dated December 24, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner also requested a fair opportunity of hearing and the ability to submit relevant certificates and forms to prove their case for a review of the Bespoke Policy dated February 28, 2022. Alternatively, they sought to set aside the order dated December 24, 2025, and requested amendments to the Bespoke Industrial Policy to transfer incentive components towards fixed capital investment or interest subsidy without a cap. The State's counsel had no objection to the limited prayer for a direction to consider the pending representation.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's appeal dated January 28, 2026, in accordance with the law, rules, and regulations, and in an objective manner, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The specific prayers regarding setting aside the order dated December 24, 2025, and amending the Bespoke Industrial Policy were not directly addressed in the final operative part of the order, as the Court chose to direct the decision of the pending appeal. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory appeal is pending and the petitioner seeks a direction for its expeditious disposal, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can issue such a direction without delving into the merits of the appeal itself, provided the respondent authority has no objection to such a limited direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's appeal dated January 28, 2026, within a specified timeframe, as per the petitioner's primary prayer? 2. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity of hearing and allow submission of relevant documents for reviewing the Bespoke Policy dated February 28, 2022? 3. Whether the order dated December 24, 2025, passed by Respondent No. 2 should be set aside for being arbitrary and unreasonable? 4. Whether the Court should direct amendments to the Bespoke Industrial Policy to transfer incentive components towards fixed capital investment or interest subsidy without a cap? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought directions for the authorities to decide their pending appeal within a time frame. They also sought a fair hearing and the ability to submit evidence for policy review, or alternatively, setting aside the impugned order and amending the policy. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State's counsel had no objection to the limited prayer seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the pending representation.