- (1.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that-the petitioner is a Company, registered under the Company's Act. It set up an industry for manufacture of synthetic suitings in the industrial estate of Bhilwara, with, the financial assistance obtained from the Rajasthan State Financial Corporation, the respondent No. 3. The sanction of loan by respondent No. 3 (Annx. 2) dated 15.10.1987, includes proposed financing through subsidy, to the extent of Rs. 4.58 lacs. The unit commenced its production on 10.4.1988. It is also averred that the petitioner has taken steps for investment much before the date of commencement of production, since 1987 and the petitioner has made eligible investment for the purpose of claiming amount of subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, to the tune of Rs. 33.02 lacs. On commencement of the commercial production, the petitioner moved an application for release of Central Subsidy, on 8th August, 1988, to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, which is the agency authorised under the Scheme to determine the application. However, the Corporation has not decided the application as yet.
(2.) After the petitioner moved the application the Subsidy Scheme, which was then in force until 30th September, 1988, was not extended thereafter. The petitioner, on the anvil of principle of promissory estoppel, that while the Scheme was in force he has fulfilled all the conditions for disbursement of subsidy and became entitled to it and the subsequent non-extension of time for continuance of the Scheme does not affect the petitioner's entitlement, has asked for a mandamus to direct the respondents to consider its application and to disburse the amount of Central Subsidy, as may be quantified with reference to eligible investment made by it, with interest.
(3.) All the respondents have filed separate returns. The main thrust, contesting the writ petition, on behalf of all the respondents, is that the Scheme was not extended after 30th September, 1988 and the petitioner's application could not be decided before that date; the petitioner is not entitled to the amount of Central Subsidy, which was only available upto 30th September, 1988. In this connection, it was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that a learned Judge of this Court in Rajendra Shoe Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2397/92, decided on 22nd October, 1992), has taken the view that it is at the stage when the Committee after examining the application finds that the entrepreneur or the unit being entitled for subsidy, then the sanction has to be issued under clause 6 of the Scheme and till then, no right accrues in the enterpreneur or the unit to claim subsidy, as a matter of right. Once the subsidy is sanctioned, the documents thereof are executed, even if the disbursement is not made; and on that basis the enterpreneur has altered his position by making substantial investment, then it is said that he has changed his position and has acted on the basis of promise given by the respondents. Until the sanction was given, no right accrues to the petitioner. As the application was neither scrutinised nor subsidy was sanctioned; it cannot be said that the petitioner acted on the promise given by the respondents. On this ground, it was held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the case where no sanction was made, by the date when the Subsidy Scheme stood withdrawn. Learned Judge based his conclusion on a decision given by a Division Bench of Madras High Court, in Jaiyakar Fire Works v. Union of India [Appeal No. 1075/90, decided on 2.11.1990 , with another Appeal- Chandra Offset Printers Vs. UOI and others.].;