JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement. The petitioner is small scale industry. A power connection was allotted to the petitioner for the manufacturing purposes with effect from 10.8.1982. The Government as per notification dated 2.7.1974(Annx.1) provided the grant of 25% of the power subsidy and the scheme extending the establishment of the units is placed as Annx.2. The subsidy to the extent of 25% of the power expenditure was available to the unit for a period of five years upto 31.3.89 or five years from the date of receiving the first subsidy whichever was earlier. 2. Claims were submitted by the petitioner for the various quarters as per chart placed as Annx. 3 and when these amounts were not released a writ petitioner No. 1160/87 was filed and the same was allowed on 3.5.1993 vide order Annx.4. The direction was further given that subsidy for the period regarding which bills were pending be released within three months from the date of the order. The bills pertained to the periods September, 1985 to December, 1985, January, 1986 to April, 1986 end May, 1986 to August, 1986, that is for the three quarters. 3. It is an admitted position that the respondents have paid the subsidy prior and latter to the period in question. For facility of reference a chart showing the claim made and payments released has been given in detail in para 6A of the writ petition. The petitioner is aggrieved against the conduct of the respondents in refusing to grant the outstanding subsidy to the petitioner for this period inspite of the direction given by this Court in the order referred to above. Respondents have finally refused to grant subsidy vide letters Annx. 27 and 30 attached to the petition and precisely these are the two documents which are sought to be quashed. 4. In the reply the factual position has not been denied. It has been further admitted that units which were established between 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1984 have been provided subsidy upto a period of five years or till 30.3.1989 whichever is earlier. Reference has also been made to a notification and circular in para 6 of the reply directing payments of power subsidy to be made every four months in credit. It has been further admitted that units which were established between 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1984 have been provided subsidy upto a period of five years or till 30.3.1989 whichever is earlier. Reference has also been made to a notification and circular in para 6 of the reply directing payments of power subsidy to be made every four months in credit. The only ground the respondents have taken in the reply to non-suit the petitioner is that the bills in question were not submitted within time. It has been stated that the bills for the quarters September, 1985 to December, 1985 to be submitted by April, 1986, the bill of the second quarter upto August, 1986 and the bill of the third quarter by December, 1986, whereas the bills were admittedly submitted on 18th March, 1987. So the power subsidy was rightly refused in respect of these bills. In reply to para 6 of the writ petition the respondents have also given a chart in respect of receiving the application and dates of payment as well as the periods. The claims as per the respondents were returned as having not been submitted within time as per the notification. In respect of the decisions and the direction given by this court it has been stated in the reply that since no reply had been filed by the State Government to the writ petition important fact could not be brought to the knowledge of this Court. It would be quite useful to state that in para 9 of the reply the respondents have admitted that some claims of the units were returned due to non-availability of the budget allotment but again these bills were submitted at late stage and were treated to have been submitted within time and payments were released. It has also been admitted that claim of the unit for the period May, 1985 to August, 1985 was submitted on 8.11.1985 but was returned due to non-availability of the budget allotment. After receiving the budget the petitioner's unit submitted the claim again on 5.3.1987 and the same stands released. 5. After going through the pleadings and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. After receiving the budget the petitioner's unit submitted the claim again on 5.3.1987 and the same stands released. 5. After going through the pleadings and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length I am of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 6. From the record of the earlier writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1160/87 I find that the petitioner had placed Annx. 6 wherein the details of the bills submitted by him have been mentioned and it includes the three quarters, that is, the period in question. It was for the respondents to urge at the time of hearing of that petition that this claim was time barred and the payment could not be released for the reasons which are now being projected in the present writ petition. The petitioner has been able to satisfy this Court that the delay occurred because of the non-availability of the budget. The respondents have also denied in the reply this assertion. The claims in respect of the period in question have been placed on record of this Court as Annxs. 8, 9 and 10. It would be important to mention here that there is a note appended on these representations which says that the reasons for the delay are that previously the office was not accepting the subsidy applications. This too is an admitted position that payment in respect of the preceding and succeeding period stands released to the petitioner. The averments in ground No. 10 (iii) relating to this point have not been denied in the written statement. Once it is found that the petitioner has been granted the power subsidy even for the subsequent period than the period in question, there appears to be no justification in refusing to grant the subsidy for the disputed period. 7. For the reasons recorded above the writ petition is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents that the power subsidy for the disputed period be released to the petitioner. 8. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******