GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. - (1.) In both the above appeals filed by the appellants the judgment dated 11.7.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.4383/1999 is under challenge. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment impugned whereby respondent firm held entitled to receive the subsidy of Rs.2,49,000/- is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in DBSAW No.562/2000 (M/s. B.D. Textiles, Pali Marwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), decided on 11.8.2009, in which while considering the same issue for grant of subsidy, the Division Bench of this court held that firm is not entitled for subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme of 1971, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appearing on behalf of the respondent firm submits that upon facts the judgment of Division Bench in case of M/s. B.D. Textile is not applicable because in that case, the claim of subsidy was rejected by the Division Bench on the ground that the firm M/s. B.D. Textile has failed to submit application form in prescribed form along with certain information and documents on or before cut off date which is 30.9.1988, whereas in this case, undisputedly, the application for grant of subsidy was filed by the respondent-firm under Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971 on 30.4.1987 much prior to the cut off date 30.9.1988 and this fact has not been disputed by the appellants in their reply to the writ petition, therefore, the learned Single Judge while following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in DBSAW No.281/2005 (Union of India v. M/s. M. Processing House P. Ltd. and Ors.), decided on 25.4.2007 allowed the claim of subsidy of the firm. It is also submitted that in aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that delay was attributed to RFC itself as they slept over the matter for long time. The learned Single Judge has rightly followed the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. M. Processing House P. Ltd. and Ors (supra) to hold respondent-firm entitled for subsidy. Thus, it is submitted that in view of the above, both the special appeals may kindly be dismissed.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of M/s. B.D. Textile Mills, Pali Marwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors (supra), so also, the judgment in the case of Union of India v. M/s. M. Processing House P. Ltd. and Ors (supra) and find that the claim of subsidy was rejected by the Division Bench in the case of M/s. B.D. Textile Mills, Pali Marwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors (supra) on the ground that although the application form was submitted prior to 30.9.1988 but that was not complete in all respect, whereas in this case, admittedly, the application form for grant of subsidy amounting to Rs.2,49,000/- was filed in accordance with Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971 in time on 30.4.1987. Therefore, upon facts of this case, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. B.D. Textile Mills, Pali Marwar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), is not applicable.;