LETTERS PATIENT APPEAL No.896 OF 2006 --- Against the order dated 20.10.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh in CWJC No. 8040 of 2004. ---- M/S Maa Mundeshwari Foods Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office situated at Old Town Munsi Tola, Daudnagar, District Aurangabad through one of its Directors, Shyam Kishor Prasad, S/O late Deonandan Prasad, resident of Surya Mandir Road, Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad, District Aurangabad --- Appellant. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Panchsheel Bhawan, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi, 110049. 2. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Panchsheel Bhawan, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi- 110049. 3. The Secretary-cum- Industrial Development, Bailey Road, Patna. – Respondents. ---- --- For the Appellant : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Adv. For the Union of India: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, C.G.C. For State : Mr. Kumar Ravish, Adv. --- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ---- Shiva Kirti Singh & Birendra Pd. Verma, JJ : Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. After some arguments learned counsel for the appellant could not contest the implications flowing from the advertisement, contained in Annexure-2, which lays down qualification as well as terms and conditions that make it clear that the grant, even if we are to hold that it is available to an Industry which had completed its project, will not be automatically available to the appellant. The qualification requires satisfaction on the part of the Ministry and its 2 competent officials and the terms and conditions also require that the project should be recommended by the State Nodal Agency. 3. In the present case the prayer for grant made by the appellant has been formally rejected by an order dated 08.12.2003, which is available at Annexure-14 to the writ petition. By that letter the appellant was informed that his application for grant dated 22nd July, 2002 could not be processed due to absence of recommendations from the State Nodal Agency, non-inclusions of grant in the Means of Finance and because the project has already been implemented before submission of the application. 4. Faced with the aforesaid reasons and the views of the learned Single Judge that Project should have been submitted for approval before its implementation, the learned counsel for the appellant took the line of least resistance to advance a submission that the appellant appears to have committed a mistake in understanding the scheme but such mistake was bonafide in view of the prevailing practice in the State of Bihar under which subsidy for such assistance were envisaged only when the projects were in operation. In such view of the matter, it was submitted, the appellant may be permitted to once again approach the State Nodal Agency to assess the project for making necessary recommendations on the basis of various parameters and thereafter the application of the appellant may be considered by the concerned authorities- Ministry of the Government of India in accordance with law as well as the qualification and terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. 5. There is no difficulty in disposing of this case in view of aforesaid submission. As submitted by the respondents, we make it clear that the application of the appellant dated 22nd July, 2002, in 3 case it is now recommended by the Nodal Agency, shall be considered by the competent authority/ Ministry of the Government of India on merits if the departmental authorities are persuaded to take a view that the aforesaid mistake of the appellant is bonafide and fit to be condoned in the interest of all concerned including the larger interest to promote the establishment of such Industries in the State of Bihar. Thus the entire discretion of examining the application of the appellant is left to the wisdom of the concerned authorities who shall exercise such discretion in accordance with law and by considering the application as per the then prevailing scheme. Final decision should be taken expeditiously and preferably within six (6) months from communication/receipt of a copy of this order. With this observation/ clarification the appeal is disposed of. ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J ) Patna High Court Dated, the 22nd July, 2010 B.Tiwary/ N.A.F.R.