CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated April 4, 1995 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2139 of 1991, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant holding that retreading of tyres is not a manufacturing process and therefore, the decision of respondent No. 2 i. e. the District Level Screening Committee, Bhilwara not to issue the eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner- appellant under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1987 (for short 'the Scheme') is perfectly valid. The reversion of the decision taken by respondent No. 2 does not violate the principles of natural justice.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are : that the petitioner-appellant is a registered partnership firm and it carries on the business of retreading of tyres. According to the petitioner-appellant, retreading of tyres amounts to manufacturing process as defined in s. 2 (k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and, therefore, the petitioner-appellant is entitled to avail the benefit under the Scheme of 1987. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that as per the Scheme of 1987, it applied for grant of eligibility certificate and that application was processed and ultimately, the respondent No. 2 in its 7th meeting held on March 14, 1989 held that the petitioner- appellant is entitled to the issuance of eligibility certificate. When these proceedings were put up for confirmation before the respondent No. 2 in its 8th meeting held on June 21, 1989, although the minutes of the meeting were confirmed but it was held that the recommendations regarding grant of eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner-appellant are against the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court and, therefore, such a certificate cannot be granted to such dealers dealing in retreading of tyres. Thus, the earlier decision taken by respondent No. 2 in its 7th meeting held on March 14, 1989 was reviewed vide Minutes Annexure-5 dated June 21, 1989. Aggrieved against the decision taken by respondent No. 2 in its 8th meeting held on June 21, 1989 reviewing its earlier decision taken in its 6th meeting held on March 14, 1989, the petitioner appellant and two others filed writ petition before this Court on the ground that it is against the principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner-appellant, the process of retreading of tyres amounts to manufacturing process and, therefore, the petitioner-appellant is entitled to the grant of eligibility certificate. After hearing both the parties, both these contentions were repelled by the learned single Judge and the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed. Hence this appeal. We have heard Mr. Vineet Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appellant and Mr. B. C. Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
(3.) MR. Vineet Kothari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appellant has drawn our attention to the definition of the word 'manufacture' given in s. 2 (k) of the Act, which reads as under : - "s. 2 (k ). "manufacture" includes any process or manner of producing, collecting, extracting, preparing or making any goods; but does not include such manufactures or manufacturing processes as may be notified by the State Govt. " It has been contended by MR. Kothari that retreading of old tyres involves number of processes and the retreaded product becomes much different from its earlier product and, therefore, retreading of old tyres falls within the definition of manufac-turing process and so, the learned single Judge was wrong in holding that retreading of old tyres is not a manufacturing process. He has submitted that even if it is held that technically speaking, the retreading of old tyres does not fall within the definition of manufacture then too, the retreading of old tyres undergoes number of processes and therefore, when processes are involved in preparing a particular product, that is covered by s. 2 (k) of the Act and so, the petitioner-appellant is entitled to get the eligibility certificate. It has also been contended by Mr. Kothari that the review of the earlier decision taken by respondent No. 2 in its 7th meeting held on March 14, 1989 was not provided by law and so, this review being against the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained and it deserves to be" quashed. We have given our most earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar. ;