IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 642 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.R.SHELAT ======================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO --------------------------------------------------------- ASHOK ORGANIC INDUSTRIES Versus UNION OF INDIA ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BH CHHATRAPATI for Petitioners MR JD AJMERA for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Sudhansu S. Patel, AGP for Respondent No. 2 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.R.SHELAT Date of decision: 12/09/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the letter dated 25th November 1997 issued by the Under Secretary to Government of Gujarat, Industries, Mines & Energy Department, refusing to grant and disburse the subsidy of Rs. 10,00,000/= for the industrial alcohol project. 2. Perusing the petition and hearing the learned advocates representing the parties, it appears that the authority has overlooked the notifications of even number dated 30th September 1972 and 19th June 1973 keeping in mind the Ministry letter No. 9/1/83 DBA-11 dated 17.3.1986. A copy of the notification referred to hereinabove is tendered by the learned advocate for the petitioner. The same be taken on record. In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. G.S. Dall & Flour Mills - AIR 1991 S.C. 772, the notification must prevail and a decision has to be taken keeping the notification and other rules applicable in mind. The authority cannot, overlooking the notification and giving undue weight to the ministerial letter, refuse to consider the request made in this behalf. 3. In view of such facts, necessary directions to the authority, would solve the issue raised. 4. The respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner, if made to respondent No.3 in this regard, keeping the above referred notification, decision of the Supreme Court and the rules applicable in mind, and dispose of the representation within a period of three months from the receipt of the writ. In view of such direction, the petition stands disposed of. Rule to the aforesaid extent is made absolute. ...... rmr.