JUDGMENT The petitioner is a proprietorship firm. It is engaged in manufacturing of bottling plants, chemical plants and certain other commodities. It obtained loan from respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 5 published the scheme known as "Central Investment subsidy" for grant of subsidy to the extent or 25% of the capital investment. On the basis of this incentive the petitioner installed the unit in the backward region i.e. Pithampur (Dhar). The respondents sanctioned some amount by way of subsidy, but did not release the entire amount as per the scheme. This resulted in default of return of loan. The respondent No. 1, therefore, issued the notice through its counsel on 11.3.93 (Annexure-L) demanding repayment of loan and conveying the proposal to take action under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act in case of non-payment. The notice was replied to on 14.3.93 (Annexure). However, before issuance of the aforesaid notice, in the nature of show-cause, the respondent No. 1 published the notice for sale of the unit of 6.3.93 on 7.3.93 in local Hindu news-paper 'Nai Duniya'. Aggrieved by this notice (Annexure-J) and non-payment of the balance amount of subsidy, the petitioner has filed this writ-petition. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner submitted two contentions before me- a) The notice (Annexure-J) has been issued prior to show cause notice (Annexure-L) and as such, no action is permissible on such notice as being in violation of principles of natural justice. b) The respondents are under legal obligation to consider and release the balance amount of the subsidy in conformity with the scheme as the application was submitted on 22.09.88 i.e. before expiry of the date of scheme i.e. 30.09.88. The counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that so far as the notice (Annexure-J) is concerned, the respondent No. 1 is not going to take any action on the aforesaid notice. According to him, this statement makes this petition acarpous to that extent. As regards the other contentions, the counsel submits that the same directions may be issued as are given in other petitions. The Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4 and the counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that this petition deserves to be disposed of on the same directions as issued in the identical petitions. As regards the other contentions, the counsel submits that the same directions may be issued as are given in other petitions. The Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4 and the counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that this petition deserves to be disposed of on the same directions as issued in the identical petitions. After considering the submissions, I find that this petition deserves to be disposed of with the directions as under. I, therefore, dispose of this petition accordingly. a) The respondent No. 1 shall not take any action against the petitioner in terms of the publication of notice (Annexure-J). The respondent No. 1, shall, however, have freedom to proceed against the petitioner by appropriate notice in accordance with law. b) As regards the question of non-payment of the balance amount of Central Investment Subsidy, the petitioner may approach the authority in this behalf and on this being done, the authority shall decide the question of non-payment of balance of subsidy in conformity with the direction issued by this Court by order passed in Misc. Petition No. 212 of 1990 (M/s. Jai Bhawani Tube Well v. Union of India and others), in case it is found that the petitioner filed the application before 30.09.88 and is eligible for getting the balance amount of subsidy. If the petitioner is so found, the amount shall be released to the petitioner in conformity with the scheme. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands finally disposed of with no orders as to costs.