Rajesh Balia, J. - (1.) The controversy raised in this petition was noticed by this Court during the course of hearing on 8th May, 2001. The order dated 8.5.2001 reads as under "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that controversy raised in this case is squarely governed by the decision of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition 3984/96 passed on 11th August, 1998 and followed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1389/94 M/s. Shree Jindat Oil Mills v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 15.2.99 . Learned counsel for the respondents urged that in the aforesaid two cases the controversy has not been decided that where the industry in question has not only been sanctioned but has in fact been set up before the amendment in the subsidy scheme, it can still avail the benefit of the amendment in the scheme made subsequent to that date. He points out that aforesaid two orders are founded on the premise that subsidy has been denied on the basis of sanctioning of project prior to that. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants further time to seek instruction and to gather information about the Supreme Court decision in Sri Ram Oil Mills case which according to him has relevant bearing on the controversy raised. Put up on 18.5.2001 as prayed."
(2.) The petitioner's unit is a small scale industrial unit, which was granted subsidy as eligible New Industrial Unit under the Notification dated 5.9.1990. When the subsidy scheme under Notification dated 5.9.90 was amended vide Notification dated 29th August, 1992, extending additional subsidy to New eligible industrial units, the petitioner made an application for release of additional subsidy under the said Notification of 1992. But the said application was rejected on the ground that the unit which has come into existence prior to 29th August, 1992, is not eligible for the benefit, because it cannot be considered a New Industrial Unit which has come into existence on or after 29.8.92. This led to filing of present writ petition.
(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner unit is entitled to avail the additional subsidy in terms of Notification dated 29th August, 1992 extending benefit of additional subsidy to new and eligible small scale industrial units in the no industry districts and tribal sub-plan blocks as well as to the new and eligible large and medium industrial units located in no industry districts and tribal sub-plan blocks. While the additional subsidy was to be offered at the rate of 10% of the eligible fixed capital investment to the new and eligible small scale industrial units, subsidy in the case of large and medium industrial units was confined to 5% of the fixed capital investment. He contends that the Notification extends additional benefits to all such units eligible for subsidy under parent Notification dated 5.9.90, if it is established in "No Industry District" or Tribal Sub-Plan Blocks. It is not restricted to New Industrial Units coming into existence after 29.8.92 only.;