TAPAN KUMAR DUTT,J. - (1.) When this matter is called out for hearing, none appears on behalf of the respondents even though it appears that an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent Nos.1,2,3,4,5 and 6 is on record.
(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a hotel and it is represented by its proprietor, the petitioner No. 2. It appears that the petitioners submitted an application on 28.03.2007 in terms of a scheme approved by the Ministry of Industries, Government of India, for grant of 50% capital subsidy. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the scheme expired on 31.03.2007. It appears that the petitioners had to move this Court on an earlier occasion in its writ jurisdiction and a learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to direct the authority concerned to consider the petitioners' representation by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other interested parties and dispose of the matter. Thereafter, the authority concerned by the order dated 01.09.2009 came to the conclusion that the petitioners did not furnish the application for pre-registration along with the mandatory pre-requisites and therefore, the application for pre-registration submitted by the petitioners could not be considered at all and without pre-registration, the application for claiming subsidy cannot also be considered. The authority concerned also found that the petitioners did not take any effective step for registering themselves with the authority concerned and the petitioners were insisting that permanent registration is not required. According to the authority concerned such stand of the petitioners is against the mandatory requirement.
(3.) It appears that corrigendum was issued by the authority concerned on 07.09.2009. Challenging such order dated 01.09.2009 and the corrigendum dated 07.09.2009, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.;