S. RANGANATHAN, J ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a registered co-operative society. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar and its bye-products at its factory at Madhi in District Surat in the State of Gujarat. Its installed capacity in 1967 was for crushing 1250 tons of sugarcane per day. This was stepped up since 17-1-1979 to 2500 tons per day under a licence dt. 27-12-1976. Since 1981, the petitioner, in circumstances to be set out later, expanded its capacity further and started crushing 3500 tons per day. This writ petition filed in July, 1985 raises two issues : (i) the petitioner s entitlement to registration in respect of the enhancement of the production capacity from 2500 to 3500 tons per day; and (ii) the petitioner s entitlement to certain incentives under an Incentive Scheme announced by the Government from the sugar year 1980-81, The background of legislation and facts relevant to consider these issues may now be stated. The manufacture of sugar is an industry regulated under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). An undertaking engaged in the industry has to be either registered under S. 10 or licenced under S. 11 of the Act. Manufacture of any new article or substantial expansion of the undertaking also needs a licence under S. 11a or S. 13 of the Act. S. 29-B of the Act, however, confers power on the Central Government, in certain circumstances, to exempt any undertaking or class of undertakings from the operation of all or any | of the provisions of the Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder. Some time in 1970, the Government introduced a liberal licencing policy. It issued notifications under S. 29-B of the Act exempting industrial undertakings in which the investment was less than a crore of rupees from the above provisions of the Act. A press note dt. 25-5- 1970 clarified that such undertakings did not need to obtain a licence under the Act. Instead, a simple procedure of registration was introduced in such cases. A press note dt. 25-5- 1970 clarified that such undertakings did not need to obtain a licence under the Act. Instead, a simple procedure of registration was introduced in such cases. The press note set out the details of this procedure for application for registration and stated, inter alia "consequent on the modifications in the industrial licensing policy recently announced, Government have reviewed the existing procedure of registration with the Directorate General of Technical Development or other concerned central technical authorities such as Textile Commissioner, the Jute Commissioner, the Iron and Steel Commissioner, the Coal Controller, the Director of Sugar and Vanaspati etc. This registration will be applicable to such of the industrial units as are not required to obtain a licence under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. It has been decided to follow a simple procedure of registration so as to make meaningful the relaxations under the liberalised licensing policy. In future. the registration of industrial units with the central technical authorities will. as a rule, be automatic and is intended mainly for statistical purposes. As in the past registration will not involve the payment of any tee. The application should be submitted to the D. G. T. D. or other concerned technical authority in duplicate. It more than one product is manufactured, a separate copy should be submitted in regard to each of the products. A copy of the application should be endorsed to the concerned Stale Director of Industries for his information. The application for registration should be made at the time when the applicant firm places orders for machinery etc. , or otherwise takes preliminary steps for selling up the industrial unit. In case the applicant firm requires clearance or assistance from the Government in respect of the various facilities (i. e. import licences tor capital goods, raw materials. technical collaborations etc. I required by it for implementation of the scheme,it should simultaneously make an application to the appropriate authority for grant of such facilities following the procedures prescribed in each case. The authority will consider such requests on merits. On receipt of the application tor registration, D. G. T. U. etc. will lake it on record expeditiously and communicate the fact of registration and the registration number to the party. 11 on the face of the facts in the application an industrial licence is required, the party will be told so. The authority will consider such requests on merits. On receipt of the application tor registration, D. G. T. U. etc. will lake it on record expeditiously and communicate the fact of registration and the registration number to the party. 11 on the face of the facts in the application an industrial licence is required, the party will be told so. Furnishing of incomplete or wrong information is liable to delay the process of registration with the D. G. T. D. etc. , will not imply any commitment on the part ol Government for release of foreign excliange either for import of capital goods or for raw materials and components or for providing any other facility to the applicant firm. Nor will registration necessarily imply the acceptance or recognition by Government of any of the facts stated in the application. ( 2 ) THE above policy was replaced by a different policy in 1973. A notification exempting certain small scale sugar factories from the operation of Ss. 10, 11. 11 A and 13 of the Act was issued on to-2-1973. I his exemption was also applicable to the substantial expansion of existing registered undertakings (like that of the petitioner where the existing investment did not exceed Rs. 1 crore and the aggregate of the existing and proposed investment did not exceed Rs. 5 crores. This was in supersession of the earlier notifications dt. 19-2-1970. 28-2-1970 and 18-7-1970. Para 3 of the notification stated that if any undertaking exempted from the operation of the above notifications ceased to be so exempted under this notification, it had to obtained a proper licence within a period of six months from the date of the notification. ( 3 ) A different policy was announced on 26-4-1978, by a notification under S. 29-B of the Act which restricted the exemption to cases where the investment in the proposed expansion did not exceed Rs. 3 crores. However, such an undertaking was required to register itself with the Directorate General of Technical Development (D. G. T. D. ). It had also to furnish a return in Form G appended to the Registration and Licencing of Industrial Undertakings Rules. 1962. in respect of the progress made by it. It had further to submit monthly returns as to its production in the prescribed form. It had also to furnish a return in Form G appended to the Registration and Licencing of Industrial Undertakings Rules. 1962. in respect of the progress made by it. It had further to submit monthly returns as to its production in the prescribed form. Para 2 of this notification was in the same terms as para 3 of the notification dt. 16-2-1973. A press note of 7-5-1978 elucidated the policy behind the notification. It slated, inter ,ili;i. as follows : "in regard to undertakings which would not require any industrial licence under the new policy, a simple procedure of registration with the technical authorities will be as follows. It will be obligatory for all industrial undertakings exempted from licensing to get themselves registered with the appropriate technical authorities concerned as prescribed in the notification of 26 th April, 1978 The undertakings shall furnish a return in Form g" appended to the Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertakings Rules. 1952 in respect of the progress made by them to the appropriate technical authorities. They shall also submit production returns even month to the appropriate technical authority The application for registration should be submitted to the D. G. T. D. or other concerned technical authority in duplicate. If more than one product is manufactured, a separate copy should be submitted in regard to each of the products. In case the applicant firm requires clearance fur foreign collaboration or capital goods, it should first obtain such clearances prior to applying lor exchange implications, if any, should be clearly spelt out. It is possible that some industrial undertakings may be in possession of industrial licences which subsequently became dormant because of the notification of exemptions which were applicable to them. In respect of such of these industrial undertakings as are now required to take out a licence, the dormant licence in their possession should be submitted to Government for revalidation If these licences have, however, been revoked or if the production exceeds the capacity tor which these undertakings were licenced, the concerned undertakings will have to apply afresh in Form ee for "carrying on business". " ( 4 ) AS mentioned earlier, the petitioner had a licence dt. 23-12-1976 for crushing 2500 tons per day. In 1980 the petitioner desired to avail itself of the liberalised licensing policy notified on 26-4-1978 and took steps in pursuance thereof. " ( 4 ) AS mentioned earlier, the petitioner had a licence dt. 23-12-1976 for crushing 2500 tons per day. In 1980 the petitioner desired to avail itself of the liberalised licensing policy notified on 26-4-1978 and took steps in pursuance thereof. It obtained quotations lor the necessary plant and machinery and after ensuring that the expansion would cost less than Rs. 3 crores, made an application on 12- 3-1981 along with a schedule of the existing machinery. A list of the proposed machinery and details of their cost itemwise were furnished on 16-3-1981. On 1-4-1981 the Chief Director (Sugar) in the Ministry of Agriculture to whom the application had been made replied thus : "with reference to your letter No. MFG/80-81/4152 and 4357 dt. 12-3-1981 and 16th Mar. , 1981 on the above noted subject, I am directed to say that the proposed expansion can be carried out under the liberalised licensing policy under Government s Notification dt. 26-4-197x within a total investment of Rs. 3 crores on fixed assets, for which you may make a request to this Directorate for registration of the proposal. 2. It may please be noted that any steps taken by you in regard to implementation of expansion under the liberalised licensing policy without prior registration of the expansion and also not obtaining prior concurrence/approval of this Directorate to the installation of plant equipment and machinery for such expansion will be treated as irregular and such projects will not be eligible for the incentives meant lor liberalised expansion projects implemented at high cost. " ( 5 ) PROMPTLY, on 10-4-1981, the petitioner made an application for registration as directed. A list of the new machinery proposed to be involved and details of their cost aggregating to Rs. 165. 70 lakhs was enclosed. A reply dt. 27-4-1981 was received acknowledging the application and stating that it was under consideration and that the petitioner would be called for discussions, if found necessary. The petitioner had apparently sent reminders on 21-4-1981 and 30-4-1981. To these it received the following reply dt. 15-5-1981 : ". . . . . . THE matter is still under consideration of the Government and at this stage you should not make any additions in the plant to increase the capacity. "it appears that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner s request for expansion had been commended by the Gujarat Government on 4-6-1981. 15-5-1981 : ". . . . . . THE matter is still under consideration of the Government and at this stage you should not make any additions in the plant to increase the capacity. "it appears that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner s request for expansion had been commended by the Gujarat Government on 4-6-1981. On the strength of this commendation (which we notice incidentally. the Gujarat Government had reiterated in a letter to the Government of India dt. 22-7- 1981) a plea that the expansion will benefit Adivasi cultivators as the factory was in an Adivasi area and an averment that the petitioner had already placed orders for machinery valued at Rs. 1 crores, spent Rs. 1 crore so far and planted sugarcane to meet the enhanced capacity, the petitioner requested the Minister of Agriculture by a letter dt. 24-6-1981 to direct the concerned authorities to register the petitioner, the petitioner s representatives also appear to have met the concerned authorities on 6-8 1981 and followed it up with a letter of 27-8- 1981 in which it was stated : ". . . . . . DURING the meeting you had told us that Govt. is making New Licensing Policy and the liberalised policy will be discontinued and notification to that effect will be out at any time. So far we have not received the copy of notification. Against this background we are compelled by the circumstances to go ahead with the installation and hope our case will be considered most sympathetically. " ( 6 ) WHEN the petitioner s application for registration thus continued to be pending with the concerned authorities for disposal, the Government issued a notification on 18- 8-1981 withdrawing the liberalised licensing policy for sugar industry. It was, therefore, only natural that the respondents decided to reject the petitioner s application for registration. This was done by a communication dt. 29-9-1981, which stated : "i am directed to invite your attention on the above subject and to inform you that the Liberalised Licensing Policy for sugar industry has since been withdrawn vide Department of Industrial Development Notification No. S. O. 655 (E) dt. 18-8-1981 and all the related papers received from you in this connection have already been sent to the Chief Secretary of your State for their reprocessing if considered necessary. 18-8-1981 and all the related papers received from you in this connection have already been sent to the Chief Secretary of your State for their reprocessing if considered necessary. You are, therefore, advised to apply for a regular licence under the Industrial Act as per procedure, if so desired which when received through the State Government will be considered in accordance with the guidelines of 4th July, 1980, issued by the Department of Industrial Development for grant of licence during the 6th Plan Period. " ( 7 ) THE petitioner, immediately on receipt of the above reply, made an application for licence as suggested therein on 30-9-1981. This application remained disposed of. On the other hand, the petitioner received a notice dt. 12-6-1984 which reads thus : "i am directed to say that it has been brought to the notice of the Central Government that you have surreptitiously increased the crushing capacity of your factory from 2500 to 3500 TCD, without obtaining any sanction from the Government and carried out additions illegally despite clear instructions from the Directorate of Sugar not to do so. The Industries (Dev. and Reg.) Act, 1951 provides that if any persons or undertaking violates any provisions of the Act by establishing a new undertaking or effecting substantial expansion, that person/undertaking shall be punishable. It may be mentioned in this connection that you had requested to this Directorate in April, 1981 for registration for expansion in capacity of your factory from 2500 TCD to 3500 TCD under liberalised licensing policy. Your request was considered and you were advised not to make any additions/alterations in the existing plant and machinery to increase your capacity under the liberalised licensing policy. Department of Industrial Development in the Ministry of Industry issued a notification on 18th Aug. 1981, deleting sugar Industry from Schedule-VI of the Ministry of Industry (Dept. of Industrial Development) Order dt. 16th Feb. 1973, and included sugar industry in Sch. V of the said Order thereby making it mandatory for all expansions in regard to the existing units in sugar industry to be permitted only under Industrial licences. As such, the papers received in respect of substantial expansion of your factory from 2500 to 3500 TCD under liberalised licensing policy were returned to the Government of Gujarat. You were also informed about the withdrawal of liberalised licensing policy for sugar industry. As such, the papers received in respect of substantial expansion of your factory from 2500 to 3500 TCD under liberalised licensing policy were returned to the Government of Gujarat. You were also informed about the withdrawal of liberalised licensing policy for sugar industry. Certain clarifications were sought from the Govt. of Gujarat which intimated that the date of installation of all the machinery for carrying out substantial expansion was between Aug. . 1981 to Nov. 1981, in spite of the fact that the liberalised licensing policy has been withdrawn. Further one pan of 60 tonnes capacity and a Dorr of 36 dia. and one cooling tower were installed in the month of May, 1982. According to the rules, it was imperative on your part to go in for increasing the crushing capacity after obtaining a regular industrial licenc. From the above, it would be clearly seen that you have violated the various provisions of the Industries Act and are liable for penal action under S. 24 of Industries (D and R) Act, 1951 for the above offence. The Central Government, accordingly, proposed to prosecute your sugar mill in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 24 of the Industries (D and R) Act. Before the action is taken against you, however, you are hereby given an opportunity to represent your case to this Ministry (Directorate of Sugar) within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this letter as to why action should not be taken against you for violation of the provisions of the Industries (D and R) Act. "the petitioner sent replies to the notice on 12-7-1984 and 17-10-1984 but that was no response and so, apprehending possible prosecution in pursuance of the show cause notice the petitioner filed this writ petition in this court. The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the notice of 12-6-1984 and a mandamus directing the respondents to register the petitioner as a factory entitled to crush 3500 tons of sugarcane per day on the basis of the application dt. 10-4-1981. This is the relevant background in so far as the first controversy in the writ petition is concerned. ( 8 ) THE second controversy arises in the following circumstances. On 6-12-1975, the Government of India had announced an incentive scheme which was substituted by a fresh scheme under a notification dt. 15-11- 1980. 10-4-1981. This is the relevant background in so far as the first controversy in the writ petition is concerned. ( 8 ) THE second controversy arises in the following circumstances. On 6-12-1975, the Government of India had announced an incentive scheme which was substituted by a fresh scheme under a notification dt. 15-11- 1980. It is sufficient to set out relevant extracts from the latter notification : "to mitigate the hardship caused to the Sugar industry, in the establishment of new sugar factories and for effecting substantial expansions in the existing sugar factories, caused by a steep rise in the cost of plant and machinery needed for such sugar projects; the Government sanctioned a scheme in Nov. 1975 to provide incentives to the new sugar factories and expansion schemes. The incentive consisted partly of higher percentage of levy free sugar quota and partly of concessions in excise duty. The scheme came into effect from Nov. 1, 1975 and envisaged that. new factories and expansion projects should, over a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of production/completion of expansion, be compensated for the shortfall likely to be incurred on account of the burden imposed by the higher capital cost. In 1978, there was a major change in the sugar policy i. e. the control on the price, distribution, release and movement of sugar was lifted with effect from Aug. 16, 1978. As a result of this the classification as levy and levy free sugar no longer existed and the benefits under the incentive scheme were no longer available. 1988 Delhi/11 V G 22 Under the circumstances, the Government undertook an examination of the various altered parameters for revising the scheme. Meanwhile, with effect from Dec. 17, 1979 the sugar policy hasagain been modified to provide for partial control, with dual pricing as was the situation prior to Aug. 16, 1978. After considerable deliberations, the I Government have formulated and accepted a revised scheme to provide incentives to the new sugar factories and expansion projects by a two lever operation as was the case in the earlier scheme. 2. The revised scheme is effective from the sugar year 1980-81. The salient features of the scheme duly approved by the Government of India are as follows A. New sugar factories. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx B. Incentives for Expansion Projects. 2. The revised scheme is effective from the sugar year 1980-81. The salient features of the scheme duly approved by the Government of India are as follows A. New sugar factories. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx B. Incentives for Expansion Projects. (i) The incentives are proposed to be given in a period of five years in all the three recovery areas in so far as expansion projects are concerned. (ii) The scheme would apply to the following categories of expansion projects : (a) All licensed expansions completing expansions on or after Oct. 1, 1980. (b) expansion projects already licensed which commence production within a maximum period of 39 months from the month succeeding the month in which the revised scheme is announced would also be eligible to the benefits of the scheme. (c) Licensed expansion projects to be licensed in the Sixth Plan starting production within a period of 39 months from the date of their licence or letter of intent whichever is earlier will also be entitled to the grant of incentives. (d) All the units covered under the earlier scheme which have completed the expansion during the period between Nov. 1, 1975 and 30th Sept. 1980 are eligible under this scheme. These cases will be fitted suitably under the new scheme. (iii) The incentives are applicable to, expansion projects costing above Rs. 1 crore subject to the approval of the expansion by the Committee constituted in the Department of Food and obtaining by the factory concerned of the prior approval of Directorate of Sugar to the items of plant and machinery to be installed for the purpose of expansion. (iv) For this purpose, the total cost of expansion will include investment in all items reckoned by the Ministry of Industry (Department of Industrial Development) for licensing purposes. (v) The percentage of levy free quota of sugar in the high, medium and low recovery areas are given below : Year HRA MRA LRA First 40 60 90 Second 40 60 90 Third 40 50 75 Fourth 40 50 70 Fifth 40 50 60 (vi) The incentives are applicable with reference to additional production of sugar attributable to expansion only as against expansion, modernisation and rehabilitation. This should be computed in the following manner : The additional production will be either (i) the excess of production over the average of the last three years before the year of completion of expansion or (ii) the excess of actual production (such actual production being limited to the norms of post-expansion capacity) over the norms of pre-expansion capacity, whichever is lower. The pre-expansion capacity and the expanded capacity will be calculated on the basis of duration and recovery assumed for different recovery areas for working out the incentive for new sugar factories, which are as follows : , High Medium Low Duration (days) 150 140 120 Recovery %age 10. 5 9. 5 8. 5 (vii) Besides higher free sale quota allowed the expanded units are allowed to pay excise duty in accordance with the normal rates applicable to the existing units on the basis of 65 to 35 ratio of levy and Levy free sugar. "the petitioner submits that it is entitled to the incentives under the Incentive Scheme of 6-12-1975 and, in the alternative, the Incentive Scheme of 1980 and seeks a direction from the court to the respondents to determine and grant such incentives to the petitioner. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the parties at some length we passed the following order on 12-2 1987 : "we have heard both the counsel at length, It has now come to our notice that on Sept. 30, 1981 the petitioner has made an application for a licence to regularise increase of its production from 2500 TCD to 3500 TCD. This application for licence has not been disposed of by the respondent. If the licence is granted eventually, then the main grievance of the writ petitioner may not survive. Under the circumstances, we think it is expedient to adjourn this writ petition to a future date. We have asked the counsel for the respondent to advise the Government to dispose of the application for licence expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from today without fail. Let the writ petition be listed again for directions on Mar. 23, 1987 by which time, the counsel for the respondents may report the action taken by the Government on the application for licence. A copy of this order may be given Dasti to both the counsel. Let the writ petition be listed again for directions on Mar. 23, 1987 by which time, the counsel for the respondents may report the action taken by the Government on the application for licence. A copy of this order may be given Dasti to both the counsel. "on the next date of hearing, we were informed that the petitioner s application for licence dated 30-9-1981 had been rejected by a detailed order dt. 11-3-1987. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that a procedure of registration in place of grant of licences, in certain circumstances, had been in existence since 1970 and even earlier. In consonance with the parameters prescribed in force from time to time, certain industries were granted an exemption from obtaining a licence for putting up new factories or expanding existing undertakings. However, they were required to register themselves and also file certain returns of production but this was purely for statistical purposes and this registration was a purely automatic formality. This, it is pointed out, is quite clear from the terms of the press note dt. 26-5-1970. The petitioner, it is claimed, was, therefore, entitled as of right to registration in view of the notification of 26- 4-1978. So far as incentives are concerned, it is submitted, such incentives were based only on the increased production consequent on the expansion and that the requirement that prior permission for installation of machinery should be obtained is an arbitrary and irrelevant criterion, which should be ignored and the petitioner allowed the benefit of the incentives. In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1985 Delhi 344 affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 1983 on 20-8-1985. ( 11 ) WE are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to its claim for registration. It is true that the notifications dt. 19-2-1970, 28-2- 1970, 8-7-1970 are superseded by the notification of 16-2-1973 and the notification of 26-4-1978 modifies the terms of the notification dt. 16-2-1973. However, we think that counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the supersession or modification, by each succeeding notification of the earlier one was only in regard to their contents which set out the scope of the liberal licensing policy currently in operation. 16-2-1973. However, we think that counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the supersession or modification, by each succeeding notification of the earlier one was only in regard to their contents which set out the scope of the liberal licensing policy currently in operation. The history of the notification and language of the press notes set out above and discussed in the Dhampur case, AIR 1985 Delhi 344 make it abundantly clear that, while the scope of the liberalisation varied from time to time, undertakings falling within their scope were required to register themselves. For this, they had only to make an application and give the prescribed information to the concerned authority. That authority had just to register the undertaking and give it a registration number expeditiously. The purpose was two- fold : (i) Statistical, so as to have up-to-date information regarding the capacity and output of the undertaking; and (ii) a check to ensure that if the undertaking ceased to be entitled to the exemption or increased its investment beyond the limits registered and permissiblefor exemption, steps may be taken to ensure that it does not continue to carry on business without obtaining a licence. Prior approval for the proposed plant, and machinery is not a condition for registration. On the other hand, the press note of 26-5- 1970 envisages the application for registration being filed simultaneously with placement of orders for machinery. This aspect apart, the only reason why the application for registration is. rejected is the withdrawal of the policy. But the withdrawal was only on 18-8-1981 and the application of 12-3-1981, if otherwise in order, cannot be rejected by reason of such subsequent withdrawal. It is true that the delay in passing the order of the rejection is only six months here, unlike the long period of 14 months in the Dhampur , case (supra ). But if the petitioner had given all details and made a proper application and if registration is almost automatic, even this delay stands unexplained. Moreover, since the scheme permits the grant of registration even after the scheme of expansion starts, such registration should not be denied to the petitioner merely because the notification of 18-8-1981 withdraws the benefit. Such a situation is covered by the provisions of para. 2 of the notification of 18-8-1981 corresponding to para. Moreover, since the scheme permits the grant of registration even after the scheme of expansion starts, such registration should not be denied to the petitioner merely because the notification of 18-8-1981 withdraws the benefit. Such a situation is covered by the provisions of para. 2 of the notification of 18-8-1981 corresponding to para. 3 of the notifications of 26-4-1978 and 16-2-1973 set out earlier. The result, in our opinion, is that the petitioner was entitled to registration on the strength of the application dated 12/16-3- 1981 and that the benefit of this registration will enure. up to 17-2-1982 (a period of six months) and, if he applies for licence within this period, till-the application is disposed of. ( 12 ) COUNSEL for the respondent sought to contend that the grant of registration was not automatic. He submitted that the correctness of the information furnished by the petitioner had to be verified after reference to the State authorities concerned. He referred to the guidelines set out in a press note dated 4-7- 1950 under which various factors such as availability of sugarcane to all factories within an area or locality consistent with their capacity had to be explored. This contention is correct to the limited extent that the respondents are entitled to satisfy themselves that the application is in order but it is not ; their case that in this case it was not. So far as the second point is concerned, counsel for the petitioner refers to a letter written by the Gujarat Government which clears this aspect in favour of the petitioner. But we need not, go into this for we do not think that counsel is right in importing the guidelines relating to grant of licence here. The whole purpose of the liberalisation policy is to avoid all enquiry in view of the imperative need for expanded capacity in this line of business. It should also be remembered that in this case the petitioner did apply for a licence initially but it was advised that this was not necessary and that it should apply for registration. The respondents have not brought to our notice any defect or irregularity in the application for registration. It should also be remembered that in this case the petitioner did apply for a licence initially but it was advised that this was not necessary and that it should apply for registration. The respondents have not brought to our notice any defect or irregularity in the application for registration. A mention was made of a return in form G and monthly returns but these have nothing to do with the application for registration as such and are merely requirements to keep the statistical information up-to-date. Counsel for the petitioner states that these returns have all been filed. It is open to the respondents to verify this position and, if need be, require the petitioner to file these returns forthwith but they cannot be treated as a condition precedent for the grant of registration. ( 13 ) IN the result, we hold that the petitioner was entitled to registration and was entitled to retain the benefits of such registration certainly for a period of six months from 18-8-1981 and, if an application for licence was made within this period, until the same is disposed of. In this case the petitioner did this on 30-9-1981 but this application remained pending till 14-5-1987. The validity or correctness of that order is not in issue before us. We express, therefore, no opinion on the merits of the order dt. 11- 5-1987 and leave it to the petitioner to take such steps as it may be advised in regard thereto. But no objection can be taken to the petitioner s continuing the business till that date. This disposes of the first issue in. the writ petition. ( 14 ) TURNING to the second issue, we are of opinion that the position is different The memorandum of 15-11-1980 regarding the grant of incentives on the basis of which the petitioner s claim is based makes it clear that they are available only where the concerned undertaking has taken the prior approval of the Government for the installation of the new items of machinery and plant. Another memorandum dt. 30-12-1980, explaining the details of the incentive scheme, makes this further clear : "2. The Government have announced on 4th Oct. 1980 a revised Incentive Scheme for new sugar factories as well as for expansion of existing sugar factories established at high cost to make them economically viable units. Para. Another memorandum dt. 30-12-1980, explaining the details of the incentive scheme, makes this further clear : "2. The Government have announced on 4th Oct. 1980 a revised Incentive Scheme for new sugar factories as well as for expansion of existing sugar factories established at high cost to make them economically viable units. Para. l (d) (iv) of the revised Incentive Scheme reads as under : (iv) Incentives to expansion projects costing Rs. 1 crore and above may be granted subject to approval of the expansion by the Committee to be set up in the Department of Food and obtaining by the sugar factory concerned of prior approval of the Directorate of Sugar to the items of plant and machinery to be installed for the purpose of expansion. Since expansion projects involve installation of machinery to serve the joint needs of replacement/modernization and also expansion, the expansion projects would include modernisation and replacement, but incentives would be applicable to additional Production which is attributable to expansion only. 3. In view of the above all the sugar factories proposing to expand their capacities under the Liberalised Licensing Policy are required to register themselves with the Directorate of Sugar and also obtain prior approval of the Directorate of Sugar for items ,of plant and machinery to be installed before any additions and alterations are made with regard to the proposed expansions. "in the Dhampur Sugar case (AIR 1985 Delhi 344) this condition was considered irrelevant in the special circumstances. As the Supreme Court pointed out: "the second incentive scheme came into force on 30-12-1980 and by that time, respondent had not only applied for registration but also placed the necessary orders for plant and machinery. The respondent could not have possibly obtained prior approval of the authorities in the situation in which it was placed. "here, the position is totally different. The petitioner was fully aware of the limitations. It thought that even a grant of its registration application and approval for machinery were necessary before it could claim the incentives. In its letter of 12-3-1981, it wrote "please give us permission to instal above machinery and also guideus in such way that the Sampat Committee benefit will also be available for us. "on 1-4-1981, the respondents warned the petitioner; para 2 of this letter, which has been extracted earlier, is very explicit on this point. A warning that ". . . . "on 1-4-1981, the respondents warned the petitioner; para 2 of this letter, which has been extracted earlier, is very explicit on this point. A warning that ". . . . . . . at this stage you should not make any additions in the plant to increase your capacity" was repeated in the respondent s letter of 15-5-1-981. If despite the clear terms of the circulars and the specific. directions given by the respondents, the petitioner proceeded to acquire and install plant and machinery without the prior approval of the Government, it did so at its own risk and cannot now complain because this condition works out to its detriment. ( 15 ) PERHAPS realising this difficulty, counsel for the petitioner sought to attack the very validity of the above condition as a pre-requisite to the grant of the incentives. He submitted that such a condition may have relevance in cases where a licence is needed but where the expansion of the. existing capacity is permissible without a licence and on a registration after the scheme of expansion is acted upon, insistence, upon such a condition would only be an indirect method of enforcing such a condition of previous approval for grant of registration also. He points out that the- incentives are linked to the increased production and that the lack of prior approval is not at all a material circumstance. He also says that, in the present case the respondents have no criticism or complaint against the efficacy of the plant and machinery installed by the petitioner in increasing production. We are unable to accept this contention. The liberal licensing policy and the incentives constitute two different schemes introduced by the Government at different points of time and with different objectives. The incentive scheme is a general one covering all sugar factories whether covered by licences or registration and whether expanding their capacity by installation of further indigenous or imported machinery. It would not, therefore, be correct, in our opinion, to read down the requirements of the incentive scheme in the context of the petitioner s claim for registration for expanding its production. The purpose of the incentive scheme was to mitigate the hardship caused to the industryin effecting expansions caused by the steep rise in the cost of plant and machinery needed; therefor. The purpose of the incentive scheme was to mitigate the hardship caused to the industryin effecting expansions caused by the steep rise in the cost of plant and machinery needed; therefor. It was therefore quite relevant and I meaningful that the Government should insist, as a condition for the grant of incentives, that the expansion should have been approved by a Special Committee constituted for the purpose and that prior approval to the plant and machinery proposed to be installed should have been obtained. The Government is entitled to satisfy itself that the outlay, for which it is about to grant a sort of subsidy, is made on proper kinds of machinery suited to the petitioner s needs, in line with the industry s needs and also in tune with the country s requirements, particularly as in some cases foreign currency may also be involved. We are unable to agree that this condition is not the core of the scheme but only an incidental one and that it should be ignored. In the present case, the petitioner was in a hurry to expedite its expansion project even when its application was pending and went ahead despite its own awareness of the consequence of such haste on its right to the incentives and despite the respondents specific warnings, if as a result it is able to succeed in its claim for I registration but not in that for incentives, the petitioner can have no legitimate grievance It was suggested by counsel that even ex post facto approval should suffice. We cannot agree. If the condition is a valid one, as we think it is, there is no reason why the condition should be waived in the petitioner s case and incentives granted to it despite the violation of the condition merely because the production capacity of the petitioner s factory has been augmented by the expansion scheme. We, therefore, think that the petitioner s claim for incentive has to fail. ( 16 ) BEFORE we conclude, we may refer to a point made by the respondent that the petitioners claim in the first issue before us is belated and should be also rejected on the ground of laches. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent s decision dt. 29-9-1981 it should have filed a writ petition soon thereafter. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the respondent s decision dt. 29-9-1981 it should have filed a writ petition soon thereafter. It is suggested that the petitioner had really no grievance against the order and that it has approached this court only because it realised that it may not be getting a licence and because the decision in the Dhampur case (AIR 1985 Delhi 344) revived its hopes. We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that the petitioner did not file a writ petition soon after receiving the order dt. 29-9-1981. But this was because the respondents had suggested that it should file an application for a licence. It did this at once far from its point of view it hardly mattered whether its expansion scheme was approved under the registration scheme or permitted under a licence. The respondents, however kept the application for licence pending and initiated proceedings for prosecution which constrained the petitioner to come to court. We would not, therefore, reject the writ petition on the ground of laches. ( 17 ) COMING to the impugned notice dt. 12- 9-1984 we are of opinion that the same has to be quashed on the short ground that though the registration scheme was withdrawn on 18-8-1981, the petitioner took the step indicated in that -notification of applying for a licence at once. The petitioner is in no way responsible for 4he delay and inaction on the part of the respondents in disposing of the application. The petitioners conduct in carrying on the business during the pendency ,of the application therefore cannot justify a prosecution of the petitioner. Now that the application has been rejected, it is open to the respondents to take such action against the petitioner as may be available to them in law. ( 18 ) IN the result, we allow the writ petition, in part, holding (a) that the petitioner was entitled to registration on the basis of its I application of 10-4-1981; (b) that the benefits of this registration will continue till six months of 18-8-1981 and till the disposal of the petitioner s application for licence on 14-5-1987; (c) that, however, the petitioner is not entitled to any incentives under the incentive scheme of 1980; and (d) that the notice dt. 12-6-1984 was without justification and so liable to be. quashed. 12-6-1984 was without justification and so liable to be. quashed. We express no opinion on the correctness of the order dt. 14-5-1987 or on the nature or scope of the sanctions available to the respondents against the petitioner after that date. ( 19 ) THE writ petition is disposed of as above. We make no order as to costs.