SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm which had applied for loan of Rs. 22 lacs. However, the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short `r. F. C. ') sanctioned only Rs. 19. 4 lacs on 7. 6. 88 (Annex. 1 ). On 29. 8. 89, the petitioner applied before the Joint Director, District Industries Centre, Bhilwara to sanction 15% subsidy under the Central Out-right Grant of Subsidy Schemes, 1971 (for short `the scheme of 1971' ). At this stage, it may be stated that the very scheme of 1971 came to an end on 30. 9. 88 i. e. almost more than a period of one year of the said request.
(2.) AS the request of the petitioner made on 29. 8. 89 was not acceded to, therefore, the petitioner is stated to have made numerous representations which are at Annex. 2 (16. 7. 91, 7. 8. 91 and 20. 11. 93 ). In para 7 of this petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he applied for loan in backward district prior to 15. 9. 88 and the loan was sanctioned on 7. 6. 88, therefore, it is entitled for getting subsidy under the scheme of 1971. There seems to be an obvious error regarding the date on which the petitioner applied for loan. It can never be 15. 9. 88 because the loan was already sanctioned on 7. 6. 88. The said application for loan is not on the record of the case and when asked, learned counsel Mr. Purohit at this stage prayed for time to produce the copy of the said application which cannot be granted after lapse of such a long time. Learned counsel Mr. Purohit for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in similar circumstances, the respondents have allowed the subsidy to the other industrial units in view of the directions issued by this Court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the order dated 15. 4. 97 (Annex. 3) passed by the State of Rajasthan. He, therefore, submitted that not granting the application of the petitioner is nothing but a clear violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the respondents should be directed to extend the same benefits to the petitioner which have been extended to the others. In support of his above submission, Mr. Purohit has relied upon the judgment of my learned brother Hon'ble Mr. V. G. Palshikar, J. dated 8. 4. 96 delivered in S. B. C. Writ Pet. No. 5934/93. The photostat copy of the order is produced before this Court. It is a brief order which I would like to reproduce and the same is as under:- " 8. 4. 96 HON'ble SHRI V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. Mr. G. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. R. P. Dave and P. P. Choudhary, for the respondent. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submit that the matter is fully covered by a decision of Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 6240/94 dt. 1. 12. 95. In the said matter the Supreme Court has directed as under; " Pursuant to the above quoted order Mrs. Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry has passed the order dt. November 16, 1995. Copy of the order has been placed on the file of this case. We are of the view that so far as the cutoff date is concerned, the Joint Secretary has taken a fair and just stand. We agree with her that all the applications filed upto September 30, 1988 should be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy provided the said applications were complete in terms of the scheme dt. August 26, 1971 as modified from time to time. In this view of the matter we set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case for fresh decision. All the applications filed before September 30, 1988 may be considered for grant of the Central Investment Subsidy provided the applications were complete under the scheme. The High Court may keep in view the order passed by the Joint Secretary but shall take its own decision on merits of each case. The Joint Secretary in her order has found 12 industries mentioned in para 19 of the order to be eligible for grant of subsidy. We direct that subsidy be disbursed to these industries as per the decision of the Joint Secretary, if not already disbursed. The appeals and the special leave petitions are disposed of. No. costs. " In view of the aforesaid decision, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner's application, filed before September 30, 1988, be considered for grant of subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971 as modified from time to time provided the application moved by the petitioner is complete under the Scheme, within a period of three months from the placement of this order, and in the light of fulfilment of the condition under the Scheme prior to 30. 9. 88, grant subsidy to the petitioner accordingly. No order as to costs. " The aforesaid judgment was delivered by my learned brother Hon'ble Mr. V. G. Palshikar, J. on 8. 4. 96 in a writ petition filed in the year 1993 which is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 6240/94 decided on 1. 12. 95.
(3.) MR. Purohit has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court delivered on 29. 1. 97 in D. B. C. Special Appeal No. 70/95 which I would also like to reproduce which is as under:- " 29. 1. 97 Hon'ble MR. Justice P. C. JAIn Hon'ble MR. Justice MOHD. YAMIn MR. Sanjay Mathur, for the appellant. MR. V. R. Mehta, for the State. MR. S. G. Ojha, for the respondent. . . . . . With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter is finally heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6240/94 dated 5. 12. 95. In the said matter, the Supreme Court has directed as under: " Pursuant to the above quoted order MRs. Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry has passed the order dated Nov. 16, 1995. Copy of the order has been placed on the file of this case. We are of the view that so far as the cut-off date is concerned, the Joint Secretary has taken a fair and just stand. We agree with her that all the applications filed upto Sept. 30, 1988 should be considered for grant of central investment subsidy provided the said applications were complete in terms of the scheme dated August 26, 1971 as modified from time to time. In this view of the matter we set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case for fresh decision. All the applications filed before Sept. 30, 1988 may be considered for grant of the central investment subsidy provided the applications were complete under scheme. The High Court may keep in view the order passed by the Joint Secretary but shall take its own decision on merits of each case. The Joint Secretary in her order has found 12 industries mentioned in para 19 of the order to be eligible for grant of subsidy. We direct that subsidy be disbursed to these industries as per the decision of the Joint Secretary, if not already disbursed. The appeals and the special leave petitions are disposed of. No. costs. " In view of the Supreme Court decision, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant's application, if filed, on or before 30. 9. 88 be considered for grant of subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971, as modified from time to time provided the application moved by the appellant is complete under the Scheme, within a period of 3 months from the placement of this order, and in the light of fulfilment of the conditions under the scheme prior to 30. 9. 88, grant subsidy to the appellant accordingly. No. order as to costs. " From the above, it is clear that earlier the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition but the special appeal was allowed by the Division Bench in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered on 5. 12. 95. From the above, one thing is clear that both the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench of this Court allowed the matters relying upon the Supreme Court judgment delivered in Special Appeal No. 6240/94. ;