Prakash Tatia, J.
1. The additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner is an industrial unit and claiming benefits under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for which petitioner submitted his application in time and before the cut out date 30.12.1988. The petitioner was denied the benefit of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, upon which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/1997, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16th July, 1998 and respondents were directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy.
4. After the above decision dated 16.7.1998 of this Court, the Commissioner (Industries), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur informed the Addl. Secretary (Industries), Government of India vide letter dated 15.10.2001 stating therein that the petitioner applied for the loan an subsidy benefit in time by submitting a proposal before the RFC on 20th June, 1988. That letter was forwarded to the higher authorities on 25th June, 1988 and further it was registered in the Head Office on 3rd July, 1988, but for the reasons best known to the RFC, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Board of the RFC on 30th Nov., 1988 and loan was sanctioned on the same day. According to Commissioner (Industries), Jaipur there was no fault of the petitioner in any manner and the delay has been caused by the financial institution and, therefore, the case of the petitioner may be considered for grant of benefit under the subsidy scheme sympathetically.
5. Despite above recommendation, the petitioner received the decision vide communication dated 17.1.2002 by which it was conveyed that since petitioner did not submit the loan sanction letter from RFC alongwith the application for grant of subsidy benefit, therefore, the application is not complete, therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefits of the subsidy scheme in view of condition in clause 2.3 as prescribed in guideline and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 5.12.95. The petitioner approached the Union of India for grant of benefits of the scheme but that too, was denied by the Union of India vide communication dated 24.1.2002 by taking the same view that since the loan sanction letter from RFC was not annexed with the application for grant of subsidy, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the subsidy under the scheme even after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 5.12.1995. Hence, the petitioner preferred this writ petition.
6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner applied before RFC in time for grant of the loan and subsidy, even few months before the cut out date fixed in the scheme of 1971. The said application reached to the Head Office of the RFC about two months before the cut out date, but the RFC considered the matter of the sanction of loan to the petitioner only on 30th Nov., 1998 over which petitioner had no control. According to learned counsel for the petitioner as per scheme, broadly there may be two categories of the applicants for grant of benefit of the subsidy under the Subsidy Scheme, 1971, one is self-financed and another is persons, who sought financial assistance from the financial institutions. The difference for two applicants is only about the authorities, who will process the application for grant of subsidy, but the eligibility criteria is one and the same for two. Therefore, a person, industrial unit, who is not intending to take financial help for establishing industry in selected backward area, he is eligible for the benefit under the Scheme of 1971. Obviously he need not obtain any certificate from the financial institution. It is true that there is a condition in Manual issued by the Government of India that applicant should annex loan sanction letter of financial institution alongwith application for grant of subsidy, but the condition of submitting sanction letter of financial institution alongwith the application for grant of subsidy amount is only an ancillary condition and not a mandatory condition. Hence, rejection of petitioner's prayer for grant of subsidy on this count of not submitting loan sanction letter from RFC is illegal. It is also submitted that by non-compliance of this condition, the petitioner cannot incur disqualification for the benefit of the subsidy scheme because by this no object can be achieved of the scheme and in case, that sanction letter is annexed the object of the scheme will be achieved.
7. It is also submitted that the respondents also relied upon the guideline issued by publishing Manual subsequently, which are not the part of the statutory scheme and by this, the respondents cannot put any further restriction about the eligibility of the applicant for the benefit of the subsidy and once the applicant is eligible for benefit of the subsidy scheme itself, he cannot be denied benefit on the ground of certain procedural delay and which cannot be attributed to the applicant and which was beyond the control of the applicant.
8. Contesting, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner once applied under a particular scheme (subsidy scheme) in the category of applicant availing financial assistance from financial institution, he cannot after rejection of that application by the competent authority, turn round and say that he was otherwise eligible if he would not have applied for the loan and would have been a person having the self- financed industrial unit.
9. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the criteria for the eligibility has been laid down by the respondent and this is a concession or a benefit, for only who fulfills all requisite conditions of the scheme and in this case, the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions given in the Manual and the condition of the eligibility criteria are not under challenge. The sub-clause 2.3 clearly provides that all the documents referred below the clause 2.3 are required to be submitted alongwith the application and, therefore, submission of the documents after submitting the application is not permissible. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit the sanction letter of the RFC alongwith the application, therefore, the petitioner's application cannot be treated and was rightly not treated as 'application complete'.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Union of India v. Aarbee Pipe and Profiles and Ors. reported in 1997 (10) SCC 765 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that the application filed upto 30th Sept., 1988 only can be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy Scheme and the Hon'ble Supreme Court very categorically held that only those applications can be considered, which were 'complete in terms of the scheme dated 26.8.1971' as modified from time to time. Therefore, in view of the above judgment itself, it is clear that petitioner's application for grant of subsidy was rightly rejected as the application was not complete.
11. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as petitioner's submitting application in time, there is no dispute as the application was submitted before cut out date 30.12.1988. The petitioner is otherwise eligible for grant of subsidy is also not in dispute, the petitioner submitted his application for sanction of the loan from the RFC months before the cut out date under the scheme of 1971 is also not in dispute. The question arises that whether the condition No. c of clause 2.3 of the Manual is a mandatory condition and can it be held that an application submitted for grant of subsidy benefit 1971 if not accompanied with the sanction letter of the financial institution sanctioning the loan then such application is not an application complete in terms of Scheme 1971.
12. The scheme was framed for the purpose as mentioned in the notification dated 26.8.1971, which as under:-
'No. F.7(15)/71-IC-The Govt. Of India are pleased to make the following scheme of 10 per cent Central Grant or subsidy for industrial units to be set up in certain selected backward District/areas with a view to promoting the growth of industries there.'
13. The applicability of the scheme is provided under clause (3) of the notification, which is as under:
'3. Applicability: It is applicable to industrial Units in selected districts/areas as defined in the scheme, other than those whose total fixed capital investment would exceed Rs. 50 lakhs. In case of units involving total fixed capital investment exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs, the scheme might be made applicable on consideration of merits at the discretion of the Government of India or the State/Union Territory.'
14. As per clause (5) of the same notification dated 26th August, 1971, the industrial units who had taken effective steps prior to the date of announcement of the scheme, but after 1.10.70, are required to get their registration by 31.12.71. The effective steps have been given out in sub-clause (e) of clause (54) of the definition, which is as under:
'(e) 'effective steps' means one or more of the following steps:-
(i) that 60 per cent or more of the capital issued for the industrial unit has been paid-up.
(ii) that a substantial part of the factory building has been constructed.
(iii) that a firm order has been placed for a substantial part of the plant and machinery required for the industrial unit.'
15. As per clause (6) (7) and (8) of the scheme, the State Government was required to set up a committee for considering the applications for grant of subsidy. It is clear from the above scheme that the scheme was implemented to promote the growth of the industries in certain backward district and backward areas and for that purpose the industrial unit was required to take effective steps as given under sub-clause (e) of clause (4) of the scheme. The aim and object of the scheme is to give incentive to the units for industrial growth in that backward area. It is true that a benefit can be granted as per the policy and for that purpose certain conditions can be imposed and in this respect, certain conditions have been imposed by subsequent decision and procedural has been prescribed by issuing Manual for Central Investment Scheme wherein it has been provided that the documents mentioned in under clause 2.3 of that Manual shall be required to be submitted alongwith the application. The relevant condition No. 2.3 is as under:
2.3 The following information and documents should be submitted alongwith the application (from prescribed in Annexure III) for claiming Central Investment Subsidy under the scheme:-
(a) Project report wherever it is prepared.
(b) Details of the scheme including the details of the fixed assets to be acquired.
(c) Sanction letter from the financial institution (s) sanctioning the loan or loans for the purpose of implementing the project.
(d) If the project is under implementation a certificate from the Chartered Accountants regarding capital expenditure incurred on the project and a certificate from an Engineer as prescribed in Section 5(6)(b) certifying the civil work done. These certificates should be in the prescribed form (vide Annexure VI & VII).'
16. The eligibility criteria is something different than procedure for submitting application for judging the eligibility. The procedure referred above in clause (a) provides that wherever there is a project report, it should be annexed with the application. Therefore, the clause (a) of condition No. 2.3 itself provides that even a project report is necessary only when the industrial unit decides to prepare a project report. The clause (b) of condition No. 2.3 provides that details of the scheme including the details of the fixed assets to be acquired to be given.
17. The clause (c) is relevant, which provides that every application submitted should accompany with a sanction letter from the financial institution sanctioning the loan or loans for the purpose of implementing the project. None of the provision has been brought to the notice of this Court providing for the cases in which the applicant submitted his application for loan sanction to the financial institution, but the financial institution has not passed the order before cut out date of scheme. There is no consequential penal provision in the scheme that the application without sanction letter should be rejected. Availing financial benefit from the financial institution is 'also not mandatory. Even after getting loan sanctioned from financial institution, its availing is also not necessary and if some one takes the benefit of the subsidy and, thereafter, decides not to avail the benefit of loan facility from the financial institution on generating the funds from his own source he will have to refund back subsidy amount is not the rule.
18. If that benefit of subsidy is not denied in such situation then how it effects the aim and object for giving benefit of the subsidy to the industrial unit established in backward district or backward area Therefore, the word 'shall' (should) used in clause 2.3 in relation to sub-clause (c) is required to be read not a mandatory condition so far as time is concerned and subsequent sanction of loan by financial institution is sufficient cause of sub-clause (c) of condition No. 2.3.
19. In the facts of this case, even if the sanction letter was issued by the RFC on 30th Nov., 1988 on application of the petitioner dated 20th June, 1989 will certainly relate back to the date from when the petitioner applied for the financial assistance. The petitioner has already established industrial unit before the cut out date and started commercial productions within the permissible time then the respondents were wrong in rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of subsidy on the ground that petitioner did not submit the sanction letter of the RFC alongwith the application.
20. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.1.2002 (Annex.5) and the order dated 24.1.2002 (Annex.6) denying the subsidy benefit to the petitioner are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give benefit of the scheme to the petitioner and disburse the subsidy amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order which may be provided by the petitioner also.
21. The request of petitioner for grant of interest is denied because of the reason that it cannot be said that the respondents malafidely or without there being any basis denied the benefit to the petitioner by deliberate or wrongful interpreting the clause (c) of condition No. 2.3 of the Conditions are provided in the Manual. A decision may be wrong, but it does not mean that has been taken to cause harm to the other party in all cases. Therefore, this court is not inclined to grant any interest for the delayed payment.