Judgment S.J. DESHPANDE, J.:---This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a partnership firm established on 1st of March, 1980, and registered on 18th of August, 1980. The partners of the firm are not shown as parties to the petition. However, the firm being registered, it must be deemed that all partners are parties to this petition. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is the Marathwada Development Corporation Limited, situated at Vikas Bhavan, Aurangabad. Respondent No. 3 is the Maharashtra State Oil Seeds Commercial and Industrial Corporation Ltd., situated at Jolly Bhavan No. 2, 2nd Floor, New Marines lines, Bombay. 2. The partnership is a Will. The business of the partnership firm was of dealing in oil from oilseeds, except KARDI, and pulses of all kinds. The partnership is styled as Messrs. S.K. Oil and pulses Mill situated at Plot No. 46 and 53, Lathur Industrial State Co-operative Society Ltd., Lathur. The petitioner states that it has capital investment in the industry to the tune of Rs. 19 lakhs, out of which the contribution by the partners is to the tune of Rs. 5,85,000/- and the rest of the capital is raised by the firm by taking loans from the Bank. 3. It is alleged that the reports were available to show that there is enough agricultural produce of raw material available for starting oil industry at Latur. It was stated that the climate is also very suitable in this part of the State, that is, Marathwada region, and this region, being backward has several disadvantages such as absence of skilled labour, lack of assured market and want of transport facilities. As the existing units in Lathur could not process the full arrival of the raw material, the petitioner states that they wanted to establish the said industry and conduct their business in this area. 4. It is stated that respondent No. 1 introduced a scheme named as "Package Scheme of Incentives 1979". This scheme is in continuation of the scheme earlier introduced by respondent No. 1 in 1964. 4. It is stated that respondent No. 1 introduced a scheme named as "Package Scheme of Incentives 1979". This scheme is in continuation of the scheme earlier introduced by respondent No. 1 in 1964. The important grievance of the petitioner, as alleged in the petition, is that respondent No. 1 by introducing this scheme issued certain specific directions, to which we will refer later, as a result which the petitioner was not able to get the requisite certificate, called the eligibility certificate under the scheme. The benefits, which are available under the scheme, are dependent on the receipt of this eligibility certificate. 5. The petitioner has then paragraphs 4 and 5 of his petition summarised the nature and the formation of the scheme. It is stated that respondent No. 2 has been constituted an agency for implementing the said scheme. The scheme is introduced by respondent No. 1. However, the actual implementation rests with respondent No. 2 under the direction and control of respondent No. 1. 6. A particular feature of the said package scheme is that industries are divided into three parts consisting of large, medium scale and small scale industries. In this petition, we are concerned with a Small Scale Industrial Unit. The location of industries is also divided into various groups, like 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. The petitioner industry is covered as a small scale industry in Group 'D'. It is stated that Group 'D' represents or reflects an area, which is least developed. It is alleged in the petition that though the scheme was introduced in the year 1979, it was announced in 1980, and it was effective retrospectively from 1-2-1979 and is effective till 31-3-1983. 7. The petitioner further states that on 5th July, 1980, respondent No. 1 by a Government Resolution issued an amended scheme. However, we are not concerned in this petition with the amended scheme dated 5th July, 1980. It is stated by the petitioner that by the amended scheme dated 5th July, 1980, certain tax exemptions were granted. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is required to fulfil initial and final steps as provided by the scheme and it is only after fulfilling these initial and final steps that the petitioner gets a right to have an eligibility certificate under the scheme. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is required to fulfil initial and final steps as provided by the scheme and it is only after fulfilling these initial and final steps that the petitioner gets a right to have an eligibility certificate under the scheme. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has completed all initial and final and effective steps, yet the respondents are denying the petitioner the eligibility certificate, which the petitioner is entitled to get under the scheme. 8. The petitioner says that it has applied in the prescribed Form No. 1 for eligibility certificate to the respondent on 18th of February, 1981. It is also stated that it has given the relevant details such as, possession of land, date of taking possession of the land, which is 31st July, 1980, and it has also obtained a no objection certificate on the same day. The petitioner has also obtained a provisional registration of small scale industry from the Director of Small Scale Industries on 19-4-1980. It is further stated that the registration of the petitioner has been made final on 17th May, 1982. The petitioner states that thereafter on 16th May, 1981, he obtained a sales tax registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act and further obtained a sales tax registration certificate under the Bombay Sales Tax Act on 29-5-1981. The petitioner states that thereafter a letter by respondent No. 2 came to be addressed to the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Osmanabad, calling upon him to send necessary papers to forward them to the Government. Then the petitioner has referred to a letter issued by the district Industries Centre, Osmanabad, dated 21-9-1981, wherein it is stated that there are about 63 oil mills in the district and the letter further mentions that additional 45 to 50 oil mills will not face any difficulty in procuring the raw material. The petitioner in short says that under the relevant scheme, to which we will refer later, he has taken all effective steps, including the initial and final steps. The petitioner says that in pursuance of these steps, he has obtained a sanction to the total grant of loan of Rs. 14,42,000/- on some terms and conditions. It is stated that he has completed all the requirements and he has further stated that he commenced his production on 26th of January, 1982. The petitioner says that in pursuance of these steps, he has obtained a sanction to the total grant of loan of Rs. 14,42,000/- on some terms and conditions. It is stated that he has completed all the requirements and he has further stated that he commenced his production on 26th of January, 1982. It is here that the petitioner says that once again he requested respondent No. 2 to grant rant the eligibility certificate. Then there was some change in the policy of the Government to offer certain further benefits of sales tax and an option was given. Then it is stated by the petitioner that he has not chosen the option, but he has stood by the previous commitments and it is said that he does not want to claim the options and contends that the petitioner wanted to avail of the sales tax benefits by way of exemption and not by way of deferral. The petitioner that requested respondent No. 2 for issue of the eligibility certificate by issuing several letters and reminders, but till July 1982, he has not got any eligibility certificate. Then in paragraph 7, the petitioner has specifically alleged that after the scheme came into operation, certain industries were given the eligibility certificates. Further it is stated that respondent No. 1 issued a directive in the month of May, 1982, to respondent No. 2 stating that the eligibility certificate should not be granted without proper scrutiny. It appears that certain new conditions were laid down by the scheme. It is here that the petitioner has stated specifically in his petition that these conditions were challenged in this Court by other industries in Writ Petition No. 242 of 1982 and it appears that respondent No. 1 realised that there was likely to be some difficulty in following these conditions and, therefore, those petitioners, who filed the above petition, were granted the eligibility certificate without following these conditions. This matter is referred to by the petitioner only by way of a circumstance to show the attitude of respondent No. 1. Then the petitioner refers to the fact in his petition that his unit was completed all effective steps before 10th January, 1983, when the industry of the petitioner has already started its production. It is the case of the petitioner that he has submitted all documents necessary for the purpose of grant of eligibility certificate. Then the petitioner refers to the fact in his petition that his unit was completed all effective steps before 10th January, 1983, when the industry of the petitioner has already started its production. It is the case of the petitioner that he has submitted all documents necessary for the purpose of grant of eligibility certificate. However, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been in different and somehow or the other hostile to the petitioner and have not cared to process his application and have kept his application pending since January despite several reminders. 9. The petitioner further states that to his surprise, on 25th October, 1982, respondent No. 1 issued a letter by which respondent No. 1 asked all the General Managers of the District Industries Centres to scrutinise the proposals for setting upon the oil mills rigorously and directed them, especially by direction No. (3) that they should not issue the registration and eligibility certificate a matter of course unless they are satisfied that the conditions are fulfilled and there is scope for another oil mill in that area. Respondent No. 1 further directed that if it is revealed that there is no such scope, no registration should be made and in case of doubt, a reference be made to the Government with full data and for decision. This letter is included in this petition. We will however, show later that the challenge given to this letter may not survive in this petition in view of certain further developments. 10. The petitioner says that this letter constitutes mala fides on the part of respondent No. 1 as the Government by this letter has directed certain new conditions to be fulfilled by the eligible units. This letter is addressed to the Industries Commissioner, Bombay and to the Managing Directors of the Development Corporations in the State of Maharashtra including the Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad. The petitioner specifically says that in this letter, the following directions are given by the Government. This letter is addressed to the Industries Commissioner, Bombay and to the Managing Directors of the Development Corporations in the State of Maharashtra including the Marathwada Development Corporation, Aurangabad. The petitioner specifically says that in this letter, the following directions are given by the Government. We have already referred to direction No. 3, in para 9 which was material in this case, and therefore, we are reproducing only the first two directions--- (1) The registration for new oil mills should be granted only after ascertaining from the Maharashtra Oil Seeds Corporation continuous availability of oil seeds without affecting the capacity of the existing oil mills; and (2) A 'no objection certificate"' from the Maharashtra Oil Seeds Corporation should also be obtained for setting up new oil mills. The Maharashtra Oil Seeds Corporation referred to in these two directions is respondent No. 3 in this petition. The grievance of the petitioner in regard to this letter is that this letter dated 25th October, 1982, is issued by respondent No. 1 with the ulterior motive only to hamper the processing of the petitioner's application and the directives contained in this letter create further hurdles and obstacles in the way of the petitioner to obtain the eligibility certificate. In fact, this letter has no relevance at all under the scheme. However, respondent No. 1 issued this letter and, therefore, the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 has issued this letter only to obstruct the course of obtaining the eligibility certificate by the petitioner. 11. The petitioner further states that by letter dated 1st December, 1982, which is annexed as Exh. A-2 to the petition, the Government, that is, respondent No. 1 has informed the Maharashtra State Oil Seeds Commercial and Industrial Corporation Limited, that is, respondent No. 3, as also to the Regional Development Corporations and all district Industries Centres certain instructions. In this letter, the Government has declared its policy to encourage setting up to edible oil mills only on co-operative basis and that no new oil mills should be set up in the private sector unless and until a clearance certificate from respondent No. 3 is obtained. In this letter, the Government has declared its policy to encourage setting up to edible oil mills only on co-operative basis and that no new oil mills should be set up in the private sector unless and until a clearance certificate from respondent No. 3 is obtained. It is stated in this letter that in future the Regional Development Corporations and the General Managers of the District Industries Centre will refer the individual cases of oil mills pending with them and fresh applications for grant of final S.S.I. registration/eligibility certificate under the Package Scheme of incentives to the Corporation, that is, respondent No. 3, for getting clearance from it. By this letter, respondent No. 3 was directed to communicate its recommendations to the respective District Industries Centres/Regional Development Corporation after examining the case from the point of view of availability of raw material, market for oil and feasibility of installing additional capacity vis-a-vis existing capacity in the area. A copy of this letter was also endorsed to the respective Regional Development Corporations including Marathwada Development Corporations which is respondent No. 2 in this petition. We will refer to this letter later on. 12. The petitioner further states that the letter written by respondent No. 1 on 1st December, 1982 and another letter dated 25th October, 1982, referred to above, and the directions issued in this letter to obtain clearance certificate from respondent No. 3, all these acts of respondent No. 1 are directed towards the intentional mischief, which respondent No. 1 is playing in this case as far as the petitioner is concerned. The mischief relates to the delay or, perhaps, denial of the eligibility certificate to the petitioner, although the petitioner has, in accordance with the 1979 Scheme, completed all the initial, final and effective steps and his case is quite ripe for grant of eligibility certificate. 13. It is averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 is not an authority under this scheme and reference for any certificate including the clearance or registration certificate as also calling for its views and asking it for processing all applications in quite irrelevant as far as the petitioner is concerned. 14. 13. It is averred by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 is not an authority under this scheme and reference for any certificate including the clearance or registration certificate as also calling for its views and asking it for processing all applications in quite irrelevant as far as the petitioner is concerned. 14. It is also curious, the petitioner states, that when the petition actually approached respondent No. 3 for demanding the eligibility certificate, respondent No. 3 in categorical terms informed the petitioner that they did not receive any instructions from the Government. The net result, according to the petitioner, is that respondent No. 1 is bent upon creating some obstacles is the way of the petitioner to obtain the eligibility certificate. 15. The petitioner has further averred in his petition that respondent No. 1 has always an intention to resile from the promises held out earlier, on the basis of which the petitioner and the persons similarly situated raised capital and invested large sum by incurring loan liabilities. The petitioner says that calling upon the petitioner to furnish certain other certificates and no objection certificates and especially asking him to comply with the directions issued under letter dated 25th October, 1982 constitute a threat to continue his business and these acts of respondent No. 1 are quite mala fide. The mala fides are said to have been disclosed by following facts in the petition. 1) That condition to bring No Objection Certificate from respondent No. 3 is unwarranted, because Clause 2.3 of the Scheme does not refer to this agency at all; and 2) The petitioner having completed all the initial, final and effective steps and commenced his production on 26th January, 1982 and obtained registration certificate on 17-3-1982, asking him now to bring again a no objection certificate is also an instance of mala fide. Then the petitioner, in one of the grounds, has specifically stated as follows :--- g) That by imposing the new conditions by its letter dated 25-10-1982, respondent No. 1 is seeking to create hurdles and difficulties with a view to avoid granting of eligibility certificate under the unamended scheme. Then the petitioner, in one of the grounds, has specifically stated as follows :--- g) That by imposing the new conditions by its letter dated 25-10-1982, respondent No. 1 is seeking to create hurdles and difficulties with a view to avoid granting of eligibility certificate under the unamended scheme. In this behalf, it i submitted that the petitioner has acted on the promise held out by respondent No. 1 in the unamended package scheme and further that the Petitioner had acted to its detriment by making large investments, by way of property, machinery, labour and raw materials. It is, therefore, submitted that the acts of respondent No. 1 amount to breach of its promise and that respondent No. 1 is barred by the principle of promissory estoppel from going back on its promise and committing a breach thereof. We have specially quoted this ground only to show that the whole basis of this petition is based on the application of these principles of promissory estoppel in this case. 16. The petitioner further says that his right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India has also been violated as, without the benefits under the Scheme, he would not be able to cope up with the other units which have already been granted benefits under the Scheme. 17. A grievance of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution is also made in the petition. The petitioner again repeated his case of relying on the principles of promissory estoppel. In the last, the petitioner, in relief clause, has prayed for the following reliefs :--- a) That it be declared that the directions contained in the letter dated 25-10-1982 at Exhibit 'D' are illegal and consequently the said letter be quashed; and b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleaded to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing respondent No. 2 to grant eligibility certificate and the certificate of entitlement to the petitioner under the unamended scheme of 1979. Prayers (c) and (d) are normal prayers, with which we are not concerned in this case. This petition was filed on December 18, 1982 and it is affirmed by one of the partners of the petitioner firm. The petition is accompanied by a copy of the said Scheme to which we will refer later. 18. Prayers (c) and (d) are normal prayers, with which we are not concerned in this case. This petition was filed on December 18, 1982 and it is affirmed by one of the partners of the petitioner firm. The petition is accompanied by a copy of the said Scheme to which we will refer later. 18. In reply to the petition, the Government, that is, respondent No. 1 has filed a return on 9th March, 1983. The return states that the facts relating to the completion of the steps and other facts alleged in the petition stand admitted. The principal ground raised in the affidavit filed by the Government is that the package scheme was introduced by the Government to give certain incentives to certain industries. The scheme was reviewed by the Government from time to time and on 5th January, 1980, the package scheme of 1979 was introduced. In Clause 1.2 of the said scheme, it is stated that the scheme shall remain in force from August 1, 1979 to March 31, 1983. However, it appears that this date has been changed to 10th January, 1983. It is also laid down by the Government, it is stated in return, that the Government has right to amend the scheme after giving six months' notice in that behalf. It if further specifically stated that the package scheme, popularly known as the package scheme of 1979, does not create any right whatsoever in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that according to Clause 4.6 of the said scheme, no right or claim for any incentive under the scheme is deemed to have been conferred by the scheme merely by virtue of the fact that the unit has fulfilled on its part conditions of the scheme. The incentives under the scheme cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the letter of intent/eligibility certificate has been issued under the scheme by the implementing agency concerned and the unit has complied with the stipulations/conditions of the letter of intent/eligibility certificate. The return further states that in view of this position, the condition raised in paragraph 2 of the petition is incorrect and it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 19. The return further states that in view of this position, the condition raised in paragraph 2 of the petition is incorrect and it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 19. Then in paragraph 5 of the return, admitting the other contentions as being relating to the other respondents, it is further stated that apart from the sovereign function, the state Government is required to promote healthy industrial growth to the State and after the implementation of the, package scheme of 1979, the Government started receiving representations particularly in the year 1981 that the new units, particularly in oil industry are being disbursed the incentives at such a high rate that the interests of the existing units are being adversely affected, and certain oil mills had also filed a writ petition, which is pending at Nagpur. It is stated that in the petition similar question is raised and the package scheme of 1979 is challenged as the State Government in giving discriminatory treatment to the existing units and that certain benefits and similar incentives are denied to them. It is further stated that it has been brought to the notice of the Government that the concessions are being misused and there is mushroom growth of oil mills and, therefore, the Government had to decide the procedure to be adopted in ensuring that only genuine oil mills are brought within the purview of the package scheme of 1979 and the interest of the existing oil millers should be adequately protected against the mushroom growth of small scale oil industries proposed to be established with an intention to reap unlimited profits under the scheme. It was stated in this connection by respondent No. 1 in his affidavit that it was to achieve this object and to obtain the exact nature of the units coming up that respondent No. 3 was constituted to examine and scrutinise the applications of several persons while granting the eligibility certificate in order to ascertain the feasibility of the new units coming up. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 was asked under instructions dated 1-12-1982 to offer its recommendations. It may be mentioned here that we have earlier referred to this letter as being not of any use to the petitioner to contend that this letter was issued by respondent No. 1 with ulterior motive. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 was asked under instructions dated 1-12-1982 to offer its recommendations. It may be mentioned here that we have earlier referred to this letter as being not of any use to the petitioner to contend that this letter was issued by respondent No. 1 with ulterior motive. The intention of the Government in constituting the said Corporation, that is, respondent No. 3 was to ensure the encouragement to the genuine oil industries and it is sufficiently stated by the Government in its counter, and, therefore, it was stated that there is no substance in the contention that this particular demand of obtaining no-objection certificate from respondent No. 3 was unwarranted. 20. Further, in this connection, we may immediately add that the Government had to admit that respondent No. 3-Corporation by its letter dated 3-12-1982 declined and expressed its inability to process the applications, which were received by it, and returned them with the remarks that neither the Government was competent under the law to delegate its functions to it nor were they competent to process the applications. In the result, it appears that the directions issued by respondent No. 1 in letter dated 1st December, 1982 to respondent No. 3 to process the applications after scrutinising the various proposals given by units seems to have been frustrated by the very reply letter dated 30-12-1982 of respondent No. 3. Therefore, in the return the Government had to concede that the policy of procedure will be adopted after its revision in respect of disbursement of incentives to oil industry and that respondent No. 3 has no connection with the policy which was underlined in letter of respondent No. 1 dated 1-12-1982. 21. Then the return goes on to State that it was not the mala fide intention of the Government and the allegations in that behalf were denied by saying that the State had no intention to delay the issue of the eligibility certificate, but the bona fide intention was to ensure that the benefits are conferred on legitimate units. The return ends with paragraph 10 replying only 13 paragraphs of the petition. It is affirmed by the Under Secretary to the Government on 9-3-1983. 22. The return ends with paragraph 10 replying only 13 paragraphs of the petition. It is affirmed by the Under Secretary to the Government on 9-3-1983. 22. After this counter was filed, an affidavit by respondent No. 2 was filed, which appears to be formal affidavit in the sense that respondent No. 2 has only stated in its affidavit in paragraph 4, which is material, the details in respect of the petitioners unit. It is stated by respondent No. 2 in affidavit that the petitioner applied for eligibility certificate on April 30, 1981. It is further stated that the petitioner did not produce all the required documents along with the application on 30-4-1981 in Form No. 1. It is alleged that the petitioner produced different documents at different time and during the period from 30-4-1981 to 24-11-1983, the petitioner went on producing various documents in support to its application submitted in Form No. 1 for eligibility certificate and it is because of this particular delay and non-supply of documents at the right stage that the application could not be processed in time. Respondent No. 2 has filed a statement showing 21 items which throw light on the progress and steps taken by the petitioner from 30th April, 1981 till August, 1982 in support of its contention documents at different times during this period. Respondent No. 2 also has filed a copy of the rules with a heading "Chapter II Eligibility Certificate Under Part-1" at Exhibit A-1. These rules are filed along with the counter of respondent No. 2. 23. Respondent No. 3 (sic) also had made a formal affidavit repeating his grievance and stating that though respondent No. 3 received number of applications including the application of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 expressed its inability to process these applications for the reasons given by it in letter dated 30-12-1982. Both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have, however, supported the stand of respondent No. 1 that the petitioner has no right to claim the eligibility certificate. 24. The petitioner has filed a detailed rejoinder to the petition and disclosed certain facts and repeated his grievance and again emphasised that respondent No. 1 is violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also Article 14 inasmuch as he is denying the benefit of the said scheme to the petitioner. 24. The petitioner has filed a detailed rejoinder to the petition and disclosed certain facts and repeated his grievance and again emphasised that respondent No. 1 is violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also Article 14 inasmuch as he is denying the benefit of the said scheme to the petitioner. It is also stated that the right, which is accrued to the petitioner to claim the eligibility certificate under Clause 4.5 of the said scheme, is wrongly denied and the rejoinder also refers to certain defects in the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 to which we will refer later. 25. In short, in rejoinder the petitioner has repeated his own grievance which is already stated in the petition. There is a further affidavit filed by the petitioner in reply to the affidavit of respondent No. 2. This is also by way of repeating his own grievance earlier stated and it is not necessary to set out the details of this affidavit. There is a formal affidavit on record replying tot he affidavit of respondent No. 3, which also need not be considered. 26. During the hearing of this petition, again respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit dated 28th March, 1983. In this affidavit, respondent No. 2 explained as to in what manner there was some delay in filing the documents by the petitioner' especially with regard to the filing of the extract of the production register, which was filed on 8th April, 1982. Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit says that the petitioner has filed the extract of the production register relating to dal mill and not relating to oil mill. It is stated in this affidavit by respondent No. 2 that extract of production register was subsequently produced on 24-11-1982 and it is further stated that the petitioner did not produce the extract of production register in respect of oil mill before 24-11-1982. It is stated in this affidavit by respondent No. 2 that extract of production register was subsequently produced on 24-11-1982 and it is further stated that the petitioner did not produce the extract of production register in respect of oil mill before 24-11-1982. Some charge in levelled against the petitioner of making a false statement, to which a strong reply was given by the petitioner and also a strong protest was registered by the petitioner during the course of arguments and without going into this controversy, respondent No. 2 has tried to explain how various documents have been filed at different stages and ultimately it is stated that the implementing agency, that is, respondent No. 2, can always call for any document including the clearance certificate from Central or State Government and/or any other authorities in order to find out whether the provisions of the scheme have been carried out or not. Then, respondent No. 2 has filed a letter and extract along with the affidavit wherein the details of supply of this production register have been given. There is a further affidavit in sur-rejoinder filed by the petitioner by way of reply to the affidavit of the second respondent, which we have taken on record. The same affidavit denies the contents of the affidavit of respondent No. and also denies that charge of suppressing any material or falsely stating anything and explains that veracity of the claim made by respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has not filed certain documents as required along with his application. The petitioner has further stated that the language of the scheme is very clear and it is stated that several benefits available and incentives are given under the said scheme and the petitioner, if he chooses to file both the exacts, that is, extract relating to dal mill as also the oil mill was justified in doing so, because there are certain exemption in addition to the sales tax to dal mill owners also. Therefore, filing of the dal mill extract and further filing the extract of the production register on 24th April, 1982 is quite consistent with the intention of the petitioner to obtain the eligibility certificate for both the units and their is nothing illegal or wrong in filing both the extracts and, therefore, the petitioner states that the charge made against him is groundless. 27. 27. After the narration of the petition and its replies, we now propose to deal with the exact wording of the scheme, which is the foundation of the right claimed by the petitioner in this petition. 28. The scheme is called "Dispersal of Industries-Package Scheme of Incentive...." and the Government of Maharashtra in Industries, Energy and Labour Department by its resolution dated 5th January, 1980, has introduced this scheme. The Preamble of the scheme is as follows :--- "In order to achieve dispersal of industries outside the Bombay-Thana-Pune belt, Government has been giving, since 1964, to the industrial units coming up in the developing areas of the State, a package of incentives comprising mainly the refund of sales tax, relief in electricity tariff, octroi, etc. The scheme was reviewed by the Government from time to time and with effect from August 1, 1976, a package Scheme of Graded Incentives (hereinafter referred to as "the 1976, Scheme"), was sanctioned by Government Resolution, Industries. Energy and Labour Department No. IDL 7076/6212(5)/IND. 8, dated the 18th January, 1977. The period of the 1976 Scheme expired on July 31, 1979... Government had under consideration the question of revising and integrating these schemes and making them more broad-based and effective so as to speed up the pace of industrialisation in the developing regions of the State." After this Preamble, the Resolution of the Government follows, which is classified in several clauses. We are reproducing those clauses, which are material for our purposes--- "1.1. Government is pleased to direct that the package Scheme of Incentives, as last modified by Government Resolution, Industries, Energy and Labour Department, No. IDL 7076/5212(5)/IND.8, dated the 18th January, 1977, read with Government Resolution, No. IDL 7076/48287(295)/IND. 8, dated the 17th September, 1977, should be further modified with effect form August 1, 1979, as indicated below. "1.2. The modified package scheme of Incentives (hereinafter referred to as "the 1979 Scheme") shall remain in operation for the period from August 1, 1979 to March 31, 1983. Government may at any time after giving six months notice, make any amendments to the Scheme but the commitments already made shall not be affected by any such amendment." Then Clause 1.3 relates to classification of areas and several groups introduced by the said Scheme. Thereafter Clause 1.4 deals with the coverage under the Scheme and it is in the following terms :--- "1.4 .... Thereafter Clause 1.4 deals with the coverage under the Scheme and it is in the following terms :--- "1.4 .... Incentives under the 1979 Scheme will be available to eligible units in the private sector, State Public Sector/Joint Sector and the Co-operative Sector. Eligible units under the State Public Sector/Joint Sector will be entitled to incentives only under Part 1 of the Scheme. .............................." Then Clause 2 deals with the definitions with the heading "Date of report of Eligibility under Part I". Clause 2.1(i) and (ii) are in the following words :--- "2.1(i) The Eligibility Certificate under Part I of the 1979, Scheme will be issued effective from the date of commencement of commercial production. The said date will be determined by the Implementing Agency based on the totality of the documentary evidence led by the eligible unit in this behalf, as also such other information, details, etc. required/called for in connection therewith; such as, the date of power connection, electricity consumption bills over a period, first sale bill, excise licence, extract of Excise Register or of Production Register, etc. "(iii) The decision of the Implementing Agency subject to such directions as Government may issue from time to time, in this regard will be final and binding on the eligible unit. The last Clause 2.1(iii) is actually mentioned in the Scheme as 2.1(ii), but since the Counsel for the petitioner stated that it is (iii), we have taken it to be (iii). Clause 2.2, is not necessary for our purpose. Thereafter, there is Clause 2.3 under the heading "Effective Steps", and it runs as under: "2.3. For the purposes of the 1979, Scheme, "effective steps" will comprise initial effective steps and final effective steps." Thereafter, there is recital as to which shall be the initial effective steps and which shall be the final effective steps, followed by some explanations. We have here to state that there now is another explanation which runs in the following terms :--- "II. Based on the documentary evidence led by the eligible unit in this regard, the Implementing Agency shall determine the date on which all the effective steps, both initial and the final, are completed. The decision of the Implementing Agency in this regard shall be final and binding." Then the Scheme proceeds with "Existing Unit", "Explanation/Diversification", "Fixed Assets", "Gross Fixed Capital Investment", etc. and other explanations. The decision of the Implementing Agency in this regard shall be final and binding." Then the Scheme proceeds with "Existing Unit", "Explanation/Diversification", "Fixed Assets", "Gross Fixed Capital Investment", etc. and other explanations. Then at a latter stage the period of eligibility under Part I is defined in Clause 2.12. In this particular case, the period may extend to nine years. Thereafter it provides for period of review under Part I in Clause 2.13 and different periods of revision are given in this clause. Then Clauses 2.14 and 2.15 are not relevant. At Clause 2.16, it provides for sales-tax liability. Then the Scheme provides for certain other thing under Clause 3. Thereafter, at Clause 4 under the heading "General Provisions: Agencies for implementing the Scheme", the Scheme gives the details as to the implementation of the Scheme. Under Clauses 4.1 and 4.2, the State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and the Regional Development Corporations are respectively to implement the Scheme. Clause 4.2 runs as follows :---