TATIA, J. - (1.) THE additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is an industrial unit and claiming benefits under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for which petitioner submitted his application in time and before the cut out date 30. 12. 1988. The petitioner was denied the benefit of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, upon which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/1997, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16. 07. 1998 and respondents were directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy. After the above decision dated 16. 7. 1998 of this Court, the Commissioner (Industries), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur informed the Addl. Secretary (Industries), Government of India vide letter dated 15. 10. 2001 stating therein that the petitioner applied for the loan an subsidy benefit in time by submitting a proposal before the RFC on 20. 06. 1988. That letter was forwarded to the higher authorities on 25. 06. 1988 and further it was registered in the Head Office on 3. 07. 1988, but for the reasons best known to the RFC, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Board of the RFC on 30th Nov. , 1988 and loan was sanctioned on the same day. According to Commissioner (Industries), Jaipur there was no fault of the petitioner in any manner and the delay has been caused by the financial institution and, therefore, the case of the petitioner may be considered for grant of benefit under the subsidy scheme sympathetically. Despite above recommendation, the petitioner received the decision vide communication dated 17. 1. 2002 by which it was conveyed that since petitioner did not submit the loan sanction letter from RFC alongwith the application for grant of subsidy benefit, therefore, the application is not complete, therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefits of the subsidy scheme in view of condition in clause 2. 3 as prescribed in guideline and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 5. 12. 95. The petitioner approached the Union of India for grant of benefits of the scheme but that too, was denied by the Union of India vide communication dated 24. 1. 2002 by taking the same view that since the loan sanction letter from RFC was not annexed with the application for grant of subsidy, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the subsidy under the scheme even after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 5. 12. 1995. Hence, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner applied before RFC in time for grant of the loan and subsidy, even few months before the cut out date fixed in the scheme of 1971. The said application reached to the Head Office of the RFC about two months before the cut out date, but the RFC considered the matter of the sanction of loan to the petitioner only on 30th Nov. , 1998 over which petitioner had no control. According to learned counsel for the petitioner as per scheme, broadly there may be two categories of the applicants for grant of benefit of the subsidy under the Subsidy Scheme, 1971, one is self-financed and another is persons, who sought financial assistance from the financial institutions. The difference for two applicants is only about the authorities, who will process the application for grant of subsidy, but the eligibility criteria is one and the same for two. Therefore, a person, industrial unit, who is not intending to take financial help for establishing industry in selected backward area, he is eligible for the benefit under the Scheme of 1971. Obviously he need not obtain any certificate from the financial institution. It is true that there is a condition in Manual issued by the Government of India that applicant should annex loan sanction letter of financial institution alongwith application for grant of subsidy, but the condition of submitting sanction letter of financial institution alongwith the application for grant of subsidy amount is only an ancillary condition and not a mandatory condition. Hence, rejection of petitioner's prayer for grant of subsidy on this count of not submitting loan sanction letter from RFC is illegal. It is also submitted that by non-compliance of this condition, the petitioner cannot incur disqualification for the benefit of the subsidy scheme because by this no object can be achieved of the scheme and in case, that sanction letter is annexed the object of the scheme will be achieved.
(3.) IT is also submitted that the respondents also relied upon the guideline issued by publishing Manual subsequently, which are not the part of the statutory scheme and by this, the respondents cannot put any further restriction about the eligibility of the applicant for the benefit of the subsidy and once the applicant is eligible for benefit of the subsidy scheme itself, he cannot be denied benefit on the ground of certain procedural delay and which cannot be attributed to the applicant and which was beyond the control of the applicant. Contesting, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner once applied under a particular scheme (subsidy scheme) in the category of applicant availing financial assistance from financial institution, he cannot after rejection of that application by the competent authority, turn round and say that he was otherwise eligible if he would not have applied for the loan and would have been a person having the self- financed industrial unit. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the criteria for the eligibility has been laid down by the respondent and this is a concession or a benefit, for only who fulfills all requisite conditions of the scheme and in this case, the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions given in the Manual and the condition of the eligibility criteria are not under challenge. The sub-clause 2. 3 clearly provides that all the documents referred below the clause 2. 3 are required to be submitted alongwith the application and, therefore, submission of the documents after submitting the application is not permissible. Admittedly, the petitioner did not submit the sanction letter of the RFC alongwith the application, therefore, the petitioner's application cannot be treated and was rightly not treated as "application complete". ;