Susanta Chatterjee, J. - (1.) While the present writ petition was entertained on June 11, 1992 this Court granted leave to the respondents No. 2 & 4 to file affidavit-in-opposition although it was submitted by Mr. Shiv Saroop appearing for Respondent No. 2 & 4 that in-spite of recommendations, Central Investment subsidy has not been released by the Respondent No. 1, Union of India as impleaded through Secretary, Ministry or Industries, Department of industrial Development Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Subsequent directions were given to serve upon respondent No. 11 and Respondent No. 4 Director of Industries A & N Admn. Subsequently the matter appeared be-1 fore the next Circuit Bench on 17-8-1992. Mr. Shiv Saroop undertook to appear on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4 and he prayed for six weeks time to file the affidavit-in opposition. The matter appeared again before the next circuit bench on 16-11-1992 and further leave was granted to file the Affidavit-in-opposition. The case appeared on 12-1-1993 and it was placed or record that affidavit-in-opposition will be filed by 18-1-1993. Mr. Shiv Saroop submits that although he had undertaken to appear on behalf of Respondent No. 1 & 4 also, he has not received any communication from Respondent No. 1 as yet. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is with-holding of central investment subsidy in-spite of the recommendations of the respondent No. 2 & 4. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed nor any instructions has been obtained by Mr Shiv Saroop from respondent No. 1 and since no records are available it will not be possible for this court to dispose of this matter effectively by adjudicating the matter in dispute. For the foregoing reasons this case is adjourned for two months. But the secretary, Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi is directed to consider the case of the petitioner as to why there will be no release of the central investment subsidy in favour of the petitioner as per recommendations of Respondent No. 2 & 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of Communication of this order and will file a report of compliance of this Court's order within Wo week's thereafter. A plain copy of this order is given to Shri R. Saroop to communicate this order to the aforesaid authority for necessary compliance.
(2.) Let a plain copy of this order be given to the petitioner upon usual undertaking that he will apply for certified copy of the judgment.
(3.) Paritosh Kumar and Mukherjee, J. - It appears from the earlier order dated January 21, 1993 passed by Susanta Chattarji, J. as Presiding Judge of the Circuit Bench that His Lordship, after hearing the parties, adjourned the matter for two months and directed the Secretary Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, to consider the case of the petitioners as to why there should not be any release of "Central Investment Subsidy", in favour of the petitioners, as per the recommendation of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 within period of four weeks from the dale of communication of the said order. His Lordship further directed submission of a report in compliance of the Court's order within two weeks thereafter and was further pleased to grant plain copy of the order to the Learned Advocate for the respondents to communicate the same to the appropriate authority. 2. Mr.A.K. Ray, leaped Advocate appearing at the, hearing today (March 31, 1993) has drawn my attention to the recommendation of the state level committee dated September 26, 1989 wherein the name of the petitioner company appears. Mr. R. Shiv Saroop, learned Government pleader submits that there was some communication gap in communicating the earlier direction passed by Susanta Chatterji, J, dated January 21, 1993, and accordingly, prays that another period of 3 months may be given by this Court for the said purpose.;