A. P. MISRA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel. In view of the exchange of affidavits the present writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission in accordance with Rules of Court. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29th September, 1991 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) rejecting the petitioner's review application and further seeking restraint on the assessing authority, respondent No. 3, from making any assessment for the relevant assessment years in question. Earlier petitioner has filed application under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 for eligibility certificate which was rejected on 15th June, 1990. Thereafter petitioner preferred a review on 6th July, 1990 which also stood rejected by means of the impugned order dated 29th September, 1991. It is this very order which is subject to challenge by the petitioner. The short question for consideration is whether on the findings recorded by the respondent No. 2, petitioner is entitled for grant of exemption under section 4-A of the Act or not. Earlier petitioner's application was rejected by respondent No. 2 on the following grounds : " The P. K. Oil Mill and Nimit Industries are already conducting the business of mustard oil and oil-cake established by the family members. In one unit husband and in another wife is owner. Nimit Industries is availing the benefit of section 4-A of the sales tax. This unit comes under the category of adjacent unit. " This review application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner-unit is adjacent to an existing unit which has been sold to another person and lastly the unit has been established by husband and wife separately by producing identical goods. The petitioner's case is that between Nimit Industry and M/s. Prabhat Engineering Works, there is 20 feet wide road. Nimit Industry manufactures oil and cake which has been granted exemption under section 4-A. After the unit of Nimit Industry there is a 20 feel wide road and there is a unit of M/s. Prabhat Engineering Works for manufacturing of agricultural implements covering an area of 1,304. 22 square yards. Thereafter the unit of the petitioner is situated for which there is a separate registration under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act as well as by the Director of Industries. The contention is that petitioner's unit is situated adjacent to the unit of Nimit Industry which is producing the same goods. Along with the review application petitioner has filed site plan showing the aforesaid position. So far P. K. Oil Mill is concerned it manufactures tin containers. Hence petitioner's unit being adjacent to Nimit Industry cannot be sustained. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's unit is run by the wife while Nimit Industry is by the husband. From the perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Mahendra Pratap Pandey, Sales Tax Officer, with reference to paragraph 8 the aforesaid facts are admitted. To appreciate the contentions raised it is necessary to reproduce Explanation to section 4-A which has been substituted with effect from 12th October, 1993. " (ii) on or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing any other goods, but does not include - (i) any factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods established by a person on or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop wherein such person has interest as proprietor or partner or agent or promoter or holding company or subsidiary company, so however that where the date of starting production of such factory or workshop falls before January 19, 1985 this clause shall be construed as if the words 'or adjacent to' were omitted, or. " In view of the said provision the petitioner's unit would only he deprived of grant of exemption if the petitioner was either the owner or partner or proprietor of Nimit Industry which is not the case even of respondents. It is significant that the petitioner's unit came into existence in the year 1988 while Nimit Industry in February, 1986. It is true that the petitioner's unit is run by the wife while Nimit Industry by the husband. It is further significant that the aforesaid Explanation substituted by U. P. Ordinance No. 26 of 1991 that "if a person establishes any factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods or adjacent to the site of existing factory which is manufacturing the same goods and if the said person has any interest as proprietor, partner, or agent in the pre-existing factory only then the newly established unit/factory established by such person will not be entitled to the exemption. As we have found above nor there is anything to the contrary in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner who has established the new unit have any interest as partner or proprietor or owner in the existing unit, namely, Nimit Industry and from the aforesaid admission of facts also could not be treated to be adjacent to the petitioner's unit; It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner in this writ petition has stated that it has stopped with effect from 1st March, 1991 and hence petitioner's claim for exemption is only for the period August, 1989 to 1st of March, 1991. In view of the findings recorded above it cannot be held that in view of the aforesaid explanation to section 4-A the petitioner's unit will not be entitled for exemption as the petitioner's unit could not be said to be adjacent to Nimit Industry which manufactures the same goods nor the wife who is running the petitioner's unit has any interest in the existing unit, namely, Nimit Industry. According to the reasons and the findings recorded by us the impugned order rejecting the review application of the petitioner by means of the order dated 29th September, 1991 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) is quashed. We direct respondent No. 2, Joint Director of Industries, Agra, to issue eligibility certificate within a period of one month from the date of certified copy of this order is filed before him. Until issuance of such certificate the order dated 29th September, 1991 and 3rd February, 1993 shall continue to be operative. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is allowed with costs. A certified copy of this order will be given to the learned counsel for the parties within a week on payment of usual charges. Writ petition allowed. .;