MATHUR, J.—Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore,- they are disposed of by this common order. (2) For the convenient disposal of both these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of M/s. Jodhpur Cement Industrial Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan & Others S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 2552 of 1989 are taken into consideration. (3) The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and deals in the manufacture of cement. The State of Rajasthan issued a scheme known as Rajasthan Grant of Subsidy for the Purchase of Generating Sets Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1982). These regulations were provided on account of shortage of power in Rajasthan as it became necessary to encourage the small scale sector industries to install their own Diesel Generating Sets for generating power for their requirements. On such purchases the State Government provided subsidy to the extent of 50% of the capital costs of the Diesel Generating Sets subject to a maximum of Rs. 2.50 lacs to these small scale industries. While coming across these regulations the petitioner placed an order for purchase of diesel generating sets with M/s. Greaves Cotton and Co.Ltd., M.I. Road, Jaipur on 20.12.1984 with the request that the diesel generating sets may be supplied to it by August 1985. The diesel generating set was despatched by the Company on 1.4.1985 and the bill of the same was received by the petitioner on 17.9.1985 and the same was installed and started functioning some where in the month of October, 1985. The State Government reviewed its decision and passed an order on 25.7.1985 whereby the subsidy was discontinued from 1.4.1985, in pursuance of the Cabinet decision of the Government of Rajasthan on 21.4.1985 and a communication was sent on 25.7.1985 to the Director of Industries, Rajasthan, Jaipur. A copy of the gist of Cabinet memo dated 9.7.1985 has been placed on the record as Annex. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner felt satisfied that since the subsidy has been discontinued from 1.4.1985 therefore, no application was made. But subsequently the petitioner came to know of the judgment of the Jaipur Bench given in M/s Khemka Cement vs. State (1) on 31.8.1987 and on account of that decision the petitioner moved an application for grant of subsidy on 27.9.1988. But subsequently the petitioner came to know of the judgment of the Jaipur Bench given in M/s Khemka Cement vs. State (1) on 31.8.1987 and on account of that decision the petitioner moved an application for grant of subsidy on 27.9.1988. This application was rejected by the respondents by the communication dated 22.4.1989, which has been placed on the record as Annex. 5. It has been stated that since the scheme has been discontinued with effect from 1.4.1985 and the diesel generating set was purchased on 17.9.1985 by the petitioner. Date of billing has been considered as the date of purchase in all cases where the D.G. set has been purchased, therefore, subsidy cannot be granted to you. Secondly, it was also mentioned that by the advertisement in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 3.3. 1988 it was clearly mentioned that the incumbents should apply for 50% D.G. Set subsidy upto 31.3.1986 and thereafter the applications will not be entertained,but you submitted the application on 10.10.1988, therefore, also on this ground also the subsidy cannot be granted to you. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. (4) The principal submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to subsidy by virtue of the principle of promissory estoppel when the petitioner had purchased the D.G. set on the representation made by the respondents and the petitioner cannot be denied the 50% subsidy. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioner could not make the application in time because the petitioner thought bona fide that by virtue of the decision of the Government that the subsidy has been discontinued w.e.f. 1.4.1985 the petitioner may not get the subsidy, but on account of the decision given in the case of M/s. Khema Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) by the Jaipur Bench of this Court the petitioner felt persuaded to file this writ petition. (5) A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have admitted the issuance of the notification for giving subsidy to the extent of 50% on D.G. sets. It is submitted that the State Government thereafter reviewed its decision for grant of subsidy and has dispensed with it w.e.f. 1.4.1985. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to subsidy. (5) A reply has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have admitted the issuance of the notification for giving subsidy to the extent of 50% on D.G. sets. It is submitted that the State Government thereafter reviewed its decision for grant of subsidy and has dispensed with it w.e.f. 1.4.1985. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to subsidy. It is also submitted that by the notification dated 3.3.1986 published in the Rajasthan Patrika it was notified that the incumbents should apply through the Rajasthan Financial Corporation or District Industry Centre before 31.3.1986 and any application made after this date will not be entertained. A communication dated 10.3.1986 addressed to the Secretary, Jodhpur Industries Association has also been placed on record as Annex. R.2 where the Secretary, Jodhpur Industries Association was advised to inform its members, who are eligible industrial units which have purchased the set prior to 1.4.1985 and have not moved the application because of discontinujrtion of this scheme earlier to apply for D.G. Set subsidy along with necessary information/papers before the expiry of 31,3.1986 and if the application is received thereafter then the same will not be accepted. (6) Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged before me that since the petitioner has purchased the D.G. set in view of the promise/representation made by the State Government in view of the difficult position of the power supply to the industries, therefore, the Government encouraged the industrial units to install their Own D.G. sets and if they purchased the D.G. sets then the State Government will give subsidy to them to the extent of 50% with a maximum of 2.5 lacs and in pursuance of this the petitioner placed the order and received the D.G. set. Therefore by virtue of principle of promissory estoppel, the respondents cannot withdraw that representation and the respondents are bound to pay the subsidy. In support thereof the learned counsel has invited my attention to the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2), Pournami Oil Mills etc. vs. State of Kerala and another (3), Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asstt.) Dharwar and others vs. Dharmendra Trading Co. etc. Ltd. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2), Pournami Oil Mills etc. vs. State of Kerala and another (3), Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asstt.) Dharwar and others vs. Dharmendra Trading Co. etc. (4), Pyare Lal Sharma vs. Managing Director, Jammu & Kashmir Industries Ltd. and others (5) and Suresh Pal and others vs. State of Haryana and others (6). (7) Mr. B. Prasad learned counsel for R.F.C. submitted that these regulations have not been issued under any statutory provision. They are of administrative nature. Learned counsel submitted that the Rajasthan State Aid to Industries Act, 1961 holds the field on the subject, therefore, this court should not interfere, in support of his contention, learned counsel has invited my attention to Narendra Kumar Maheshwari vs. Union of India & Others (7) and Amrit Banaspati Col. Ltd. & Another vs. State of Punjab & Another (8). Apart from the above, Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan Financial Corpn. submitted that the Government can change the policy on account of tight financial position and such change in the policy cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. (8) I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. (9) So far as the principle of promissory estoppel is concerned, it is well established by a catena of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court that once the State Govt. has made a representation and the party has acted on that representation unless the statute prohibits then the Government is bound to abide by the promise. In this connection, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) has laid down the principle of promissory estoppel. has made a representation and the party has acted on that representation unless the statute prohibits then the Government is bound to abide by the promise. In this connection, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra) has laid down the principle of promissory estoppel. It has been observed as under :— "The true principle of promissory estoppel seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre existing relationship between the parties or not. The doctrine of promissory estoppel need not be inhibited by the same limitation as estoppel in the strict sense of the terms. It is an equitable principle evolved by the courts for doing justice and there is no reason why it should be given only a limited application by way of defence." (10). This principle of law has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in various other decisions referred to by the learned counsel. So far as the principle of promissory estoppel is concerned, it is well established that the respondents are bound by the promise made by them to the extend before of grant of subsidy. (11) But the next question which comes up for consideration before me whether the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case is entitled to subsidy or not. (11) But the next question which comes up for consideration before me whether the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case is entitled to subsidy or not. The subsidy was granted on the purchase of D.G. set to the extent of 50% with a maximum of 2.5 lacs but this provision was subsequently withdrawn by the cabinet decision of the Government because of the financial constraints, but it was clearly mentioned that since the scheme is being revoked from 1.4.1985 and the incumbents should make the applications by 31.3.1986 so as to clear of the payment of subsidy. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner applied for grant of subsidy on 27.9.1988 vide Annex. 4 and according to the respondents on 10.10.1988. The petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1989. The explanation of the petitioner is that though at one stage he felt satisfied and did not pursue the matter and when the judgment of the Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s. Khemka Cement Pvt. Ltd. (supra) came to be delivered the petitioner rushed to file this writ petition before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner reasonably waited that he will get the same relief as was given in the case of M/s Khemka Cement Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel submitted that two reasons have been given while rejecting the application of the petitioner and the fate of the petitioner should be examined in the light of these two reasons advanced by the respondents. In the case of M/s Khemka Cement Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the question was that when the scheme was discontinued by decision on 21.4.1985 and a letter to this effect was issued on 25.7.1985, the petitioner purchased the D.G. set on 6.4.1985 therefore, in that context it was observed that the scheme cannot be revoked from 25.7.1985 it cannot be from retrospective effected i.e. 1.4.1985. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court observed that since the incumbent has purchased the D.G. set on 6.4. 1985 and the scheme was revoked by the letter dated 25.7.1985, it cannot be given effect from 1.4. 1985 and as such the petitioner in that case was given the benefit. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court observed that since the incumbent has purchased the D.G. set on 6.4. 1985 and the scheme was revoked by the letter dated 25.7.1985, it cannot be given effect from 1.4. 1985 and as such the petitioner in that case was given the benefit. But in the present case, according to the data given by the petitioner even if it assumed that the D.G. set was purchased by the petitioner on 17.9.1985 when the bill was received and it was actually installed in October, 1985 then too also the petitioners case will not fall in the four corners of the decision given by this Court in M/s. Khemka Cement Pvt. Ltds case (supra). Admittedly in the present case, the petitioner received the bill of purchase of D.G. set on 17.9.1985 and it was installed in October 1985 whereas the scheme was revoked by the letter dated 25.7.1985 w.e.f. 1.4.1985. Therefore, in any case even if it is accepted that it was to be effective from 25.7.1985 then too also the petitioner purchased the D.G. set on 17.9.1985 i.e. the date of the bill and the decision given by this Court in M/s. Khemka Cement Pvt. Ltd. will not cover the case of the petitioner. There is another reason for denying the relief to the petitioner and that is that the petitioner did not apply to the authorities for grant of subsidy in time. It was clearly notified in the advertisement published in the Rajasthan Patrika that all the persons who are entitled to the benefit of subsidy shall make their applications by 31.3.1986 which has been placed on the record as Annex.R. 2 and intimation was also sent to the Secretary, Jodhpur Industries Association on 10.3.1986 informing the Secretary of the Association that all the members small of scale units should be informed that if they have purchased the set prior to 1.4.1985 and have not submitted the applications earlier, they have to apply before 31.3.1986 but notwith-standing that the petitioner did not apply for D.G. set subsidy in time and it was applied for D.G. subsidy on 27.9.1988. Therefore on this count also no benefit can be given to the petitioner. (12). Mr. Therefore on this count also no benefit can be given to the petitioner. (12). Mr. Mridual, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that normally when the identical matter is pending before the court the parties can reasonably hope that the petitioner might got relief on same lines. But in the present case the application of the petitioner was also belated and it was clearly mentioned that incumbents should apply before 31.3.1986 but still the petitioner did not apply within the stipulated period, therefore, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of subsidy. (13) Mr. Mridul, learned counsel suggested that there was no decision of the Government for limiting the date for application for grant of subsidy. But Mr. Bhagwati Prasad has placed on record the minutes of the Committee consisting of the Managing Director, Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Director of Industries, Deputy Secretary to the Government, Industries Department and General Manager (A) Rajasthan Financial corporation. This committee has member like Director Industries and Deputy Secretary Industries Department of the Government. Therefore, a conscious decision was taken that the incumbents should make application for grant of subsidy by a particular time. The Government can always lays down reasonable limitations that for availing the subsidy an incumbent should apply within certain time. This restriction does not in any way detract from the principle of promissory estoppel but only clarifies that the incumbent should apply for availing that benefit by a particular date. Since the petitioner has failed to apply within that time, therefore, relief was denied to him and I am satisfied that this case does not call for any interference by this Court. (14) Hence, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. (15). In view of the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner in this case also is not entitled to any relief (S.B. Civil Writ Petition 962/1987). (16) The petitioner is a partnership concern engaged in the manufacture of Gums and Chemicals at Jodhpur. The petitioner approached the Rajasthan Financial Corporation for grant of loan for purchase of the diesel generating set and the Corporation vide letter dated 27.3.1985 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,37,000/- for the purchase of D.G. set. The petitioner purchased a D.G. set from M/s. Batliboy & Co. Ltd., Jaipur. The petitioner could only utilise a sum of Rs. The petitioner approached the Rajasthan Financial Corporation for grant of loan for purchase of the diesel generating set and the Corporation vide letter dated 27.3.1985 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2,37,000/- for the purchase of D.G. set. The petitioner purchased a D.G. set from M/s. Batliboy & Co. Ltd., Jaipur. The petitioner could only utilise a sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- and the Rajasthan Financial Corporation vide letter dated 14.1.1986 cancelled the remaining loan of Rs. 32,000/- The petitioner approached the Rajasthan Financial Corporation for grant of subsidy in terms of the Rajasthan State Regulations for the grant of subsidy for purchase of D.G. set, 1982. The Corporation advised the petitioner by communication dated 2.1.1986 to apply for grant of subsidy. By communcniation dated 21/24.1.1986 the Corporation advised the petitioner to submit the bill for the purchase of the D.G. set. But subseuquently the petitioner was informed by the District Level Officer i.e. Joint Director of Industries, Industries Centre, Jodhpur that the Government of Rajasthan has discontinued the subsidy w.e.f. 31.3.1985 Copy of the communication dated 9.3.1987 has been placed on the record as Annex. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the office of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation to obtain necessary informations. Aggrieved against the order dt. 9.3.1987 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has applied for grant of subsidy on 3.2.1987, whereas he should have moved the application before 31.3.1986 and as the petitioners application was beyond time fixed therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, no relief can be given to the petitioner in this writ petition. Hence this writ petition is also dismissed. (17) In the result both the writ petitions are dimissed.