IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14490 of 2007. Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2009. M/s Venus Cotsyn India Ltd. ....Petitioner through Mr. Deepak Thapar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Addl.AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for disbursement of the balance amount of the sanctioned industrial incentive of “interest free loan” as per the Punjab Industrial Policy, 1978. The petitioner is claimed to have set up a manufacturing unit at village Bhora, District Ludhiana keeping in view the promise allegedly made by the State Government that the incentive of “Interest Free Loan” shall be provided to it. According to the petitioner, it applied for the Interest Free Loan for the Financial Years 1985-86 to 1994-95 and notwithstanding the requisite information to the satisfaction of the authorities provided by it, only a sum of Rs.21 lacs, i.e., Rs. 7 lacs each for the years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988- 1989 has been released in its favour. The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction for the release of 'Interest Free Loan' for the subsequent years as well. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. Two fold objections have been taken on behalf of the respondents. Firstly, it is explained that the Interest Free Loan of Rs.7 lacs per year was disbursed to the petitioner unit for the years 1986-87 to 1988-89 but the unit has not submitted any utilization certificate till date and, thus, has failed to prove that the amount disbursed during the previous years has been utilized for bona-fide operations. The respondents have further taken the plea that after the 1978 Industrial Policy, new Industrial Policies have been notified from time to time including in the years 1981, 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2003 that the 1978 Policy is no longer operative. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time and on going through the pleadings, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. A perusal of the provisions of the 1978 policy, as reproduced by the petitioner, would reveal that the advancement of “Interest Free Loan” was subject to various conditions including certification of its utilization for the purpose of production increase of the unit. In this regard, the authorities are not only authorized to inspect its records, the industrial unit is also under an obligation to furnish the utilization certificate to that effect. The petitioner, however, has failed to comply with the same. The 1978 Industrial Policy, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perpetual or statutory in character. The fact that the State Government has subsequently notified one after the other Industrial policies also strengthens the need based changes required to be carried out. The benefit of Interest Free Loan, thus, can not be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right. No legal right for the release of incentive through a writ of mandamus is made out. Dismissed. February 3, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE