1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.46/2008 M/s. Narayani Oil Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Judgment :: August 05, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. R.K. Mathur for the appellant(s). *** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. On consideration of the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in not filing this appeal in time. Delay in filing of this appeal is, therefore, condoned and the matter is heard on merits. The appellant has come in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.4.2007 in dismissing its writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant subsidy to the appellant-unit under the State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for New Industries, 1990 with the prayer that decision of the district level committee dated 25.9.2001 refusing to grant such subsidy be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant-unit is a separate and distinct unit than M/s. Narayani Export Industries. The respondents on the premise that the latter unit was earlier granted subsidy have wrongly declined to grant subsidy to the appellant-unit which was a separately registered unit with the Department of Industries. Its composition is entirely different, therefore, it 2 cannot be treated as the same unit for the purpose of grant of subsidy. Learned counsel submitted that the plot nos.92A and 93A were carved out from the plots earlier allotted to M/s Narayani Export Industries with due permission from RIICO, intimation of which, was given to the District Industries Centre which itself granted exemption certification for purchase of new machineries. New CST and RST numbers were allotted to the appellant-unit which is having a separate production unit. The respondents in a mechnical manner have declined to grant subsidy to the appellant and therefore, their action being arbitrary and illegal, is liable to be set aside. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as also other material on record including the order of the district level committee, we find that the respondents declined to grant benefit of subsidy to the appellant-unit primarily on the consideration of the fact that the substantial part of its total fixed capital investment earlier formed part of the fixed capital investment of M/s Narayani Export Industries which had already been granted subsidy. Plot nos.92A and 93A were part of the originally allotted plots to M/s. Narayani Export Industries by RIICO. The plots have since been divided which was in clear violation of clause (iv) of the agreement executed between M/s Narayani Export Industries and the respondents. It was on consideration of these plots that subsidy was granted to it. No permission of the Sanctioning Committee was obtained for the purpose. In substance, stand of the respondents was that that creation of another unit was a camouflage with a view to availing subsidy. Upon perusal of the order passed by the district level committee and the counter-affidavit filed by the 3 respondents, we see no reason to disbelieve the above factual aspect of the matter. The plots in question were taken as part of the fixed capital investment so as to determine the entitlement of M/s. Narayani Export Industries to receive benefit of subsidy and if part of the plots were given to the new unit solely for the purpose of availing benefit of subsidy again, the respondents in our view, are justified in complaining of violation of clause (iv) of the agreement without prior approval of the sanctioning authority. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-