A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the writ petitions have been heard together. The facts and questions involved are so similar that the learned Counsel appearing in both cases have agreed that the decision is one shall govern the other. In fact similar arguments have been advanced by the petitioners in both the petitions, countered by similar arguments by and on behalf of the respondent's I accordingly propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common judgment. ( 2 ) IT has not been disputed that the respondents assured and agreed to provide the petitioners with central subsidy. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have acted on the basis of such assurance and argument and have altered their position. In fact, even the fact that cheques have been issued by the authorities and also received by the respondent No. 1 for payment to the respective petitioners, but that the respondent No. 1 has declined to handover the cheques to the petitioners, have also not been disputed. ( 3 ) BY the interim orders passed by this Court in this two cases the respondents have been directed not to return back, but to keep the cheques validly operative until the disposal of these petitions. ( 4 ) AS was only expected, usual arguments on the basis of the principle of promissory estoppel have been advanced by and on behalf of the petitioners by their learned Counsel. That principle, which has shot into blaze in our jurisprudence since the decision of the Supreme Court in the Indo-Afghan case, (Reported in AIR 1986 SC 1567 ) has thereafter been established with all its effulgence since the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. Sugar Mills and a host of later decisions. The respondents have not disputed, as they cannot, the principle as now finally established by our apex Court. But the respondent's main contentions is that they are no longer (under) any obligation to pay central subsidy as prayed for and in order to justify their stand they have mainly relied on two grounds. Both the grounds relates to questions of fact; but as the facts emerging from the materials on record are undisputed those can be decided by this Court even in this jurisdiction without any difficulty. Both the grounds relates to questions of fact; but as the facts emerging from the materials on record are undisputed those can be decided by this Court even in this jurisdiction without any difficulty. ( 5 ) THE first ground urged by the respondent is that though the respondents sanctioned the payment of subsidy, as a result of post-sanction scrutiny the respondent No. 1 has found that the petitioners made false declaration. From the materials on record and particularly the Schemes submitted by the petitioners, being Annexure 'a' to both the petitioners, it is clear that there has been the fullest possible disclosure by and on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents have signally failed to show, from the materials on record, that any of the statements or representations made by any of the petitioners was false in any material particulars. This ground urged by the respondents therefore must accordingly fail. ( 6 ) THE second ground urged by the respondents is that it has subsequently been decided at the highest level to discontinue any further grant of the central subsidy. For this, the respondents has mainly relied on a letter from the Government of India Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development, dated 9/06/1988. That letter clearly refers to manufacturing units only, as would be obvious from the expressions "end product", "manufacture of the product," "manufacture of similar identical product" etc. as used in the said letter. During the argument before this Court the respondents could not dispute that the cold storage of the petitioners is non-manufacturing units and therefore the aforesaid letter/circular cannot come to the aid of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE respondents have also relied on a subsequent circular from the Government being a memo dated 22/09/1988. It is true that from the letter the decision of the Government to discontinue the grant of central subsidy to non-manufacturing industries also can be spelt out. ( 8 ) WHETHER the respondents, after holding out such assurance and entering into such agreement as aforesaid can reside therefrom in view of the principle of promissory estoppel, so strongly urged by and on behalf of the petitioners need not be perused in these two cases. For, as it appears from a subsequent circular dated 21/07/1989, the earlier circular of 22nd Sept. For, as it appears from a subsequent circular dated 21/07/1989, the earlier circular of 22nd Sept. 1988 was modified to a great extent and, as it appears from paragraph 3 of the circular, it has been categorically stated that it has been decided that in modification of the decision as communicated in the letter dated 22nd Sept. 1988, the Government of India would reimburse the State Governments the subsidy disbursed to non-manufacturing units if two conditions were satisfied. The first condition was that the project was approved by the concerned State level or District level committee before 30th Sept. 1989. It cannot be and lips not been disputed that in the case of two petitioners this condition is fully satisfied. The second condition is that the disbursement way made before 30th Sept. 1989. I am inclined to think that the second condition is also substantially satisfied in these two case, it appear, that the disbursement could have been made much before 30th Sept. 1989 and that even cheques for those purposes were actually issued by the concerned authorities on 28th Sept. 1989 and it is because of the inaction or delay on the party of the respondent No. 1 that the cheques were not handed over. ( 9 ) THE tendency of the concerned authorities towards the technicalities must be deprecated and it must be borne in mind, as repeatedly declared by the Supreme Court, that it is the substance that counts and must take precedence over any form. Once the, cheques were issued for payment to the petitioners much before the relevant date being 30th Sept. 1989, the fact that the cheques could not be physically handed over to the petitioners would be of no avail. I am therefore inclined to hold that on a proper reading of the relevant circulars incorporating the decisions concerned authorities from time to time, the respondent No. 1 was not justified in not handing over the relevant cheques to the two petitioners in these two cases. ( 10 ) BOTH the petitions accordingly succeed. A writ in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them and their agents, servants and subordinates to release forthwith to the petitioners in C. O. No. 14873 (W) of 1989 they central subsidy of Rs. 8,12,781. ( 10 ) BOTH the petitions accordingly succeed. A writ in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondents and each of them and their agents, servants and subordinates to release forthwith to the petitioners in C. O. No. 14873 (W) of 1989 they central subsidy of Rs. 8,12,781. 00 which was sanctioned and for which a cheque was issued by the Government treasure and also a further writ commanding the respondents to take all necessary steps for disbursement of the State Government subsidy as mentioned in prayer (d) of the petition and also a further writ commanding the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the account of central subsidy noted above from the date of issuance of the cheque till the date of actual payment as prayed in prayer (c) of the petition. ( 11 ) ). And I also direct that let a similar writ in the nature of mandamus do issue in C. O. No. 14874 (W) of 1989 commanding the respondents and each of them and their men agents and subordinates to forthwith release the central subsidy of Rs. 5,45,441. 00 which was sanctioned to the petitioners and for which a cheque was also issued and also a further writ directing them to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the aforesaid subsidy amount born the date of issuance of the cheque till the actual payment and also a further writ commanding the respondents and each of there, their men, agents and subordinates to take necessary steps for disbursement of the State Government subsidy as noted in prayer (d) of the writ petition. Let appropriate writs issue accordingly in both the cases. Petitions allowed.