ORDER 1 Leave granted. 2. This batch of appeals arises from the judgment and orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court has disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions following an earlier judgment of the High Court in Shri Bajrang Extraction (P) Ltd. v. Secy., Cow. of M.P1 In short, the dispute is this: A scheme called "Central Investment Subsidy Scheme" was evolved by the Central Government with a view to encourage industrialisation of backward and other areas in the country. Under this scheme, the newly-established industries, including those which expanded their capacity, were entitled to certain financial assistance as provided in the scheme. The scheme came to an end on and with effect from 30-9-1988. Several industries had applied for the said financial assistance under the said scheme before the said date, but those applications Were not disposed of for one reason or the other. While the writ petitioners-respondents say that the said applications could not be disposed of on account of delays and default on the part of the authorities of the Madhya Pradesh State, the appellant State says that the said applications Were not processed or disposed of because they were defective or because they had not complied with the prescribed conditions, It is really not necessary for us to go into this dispute, inasmuch as the only direction that the High Court has made is in terms of the direction made in the said Bajrang Extraction1, which reads to the following effect: "(a) The State of M.P. shall renominate or revivify (revive) the State Level Committee or constitute any other authority to decide the applications of the petitioners on merits on the basis of acquisition of eligibility qualifications before the expiry date of the scheme, i.e., 30-91988 within a period of four months from today." It was also directed, vide clause (d), that "the Union of India shall reimburse b the equivalent amount without unnecessary delay to State of M.P. once the subsidy is disbursed by it to the eligible petitioners". (The Government of India was also a party to the said writ petitions.) We do not think that there can be any quarrel with the direction (a) given by the High Court. (The Government of India was also a party to the said writ petitions.) We do not think that there can be any quarrel with the direction (a) given by the High Court. The direction (a) says that the State Level Committee shall be revived or any other authority constituted to discharge the work which the said committee C was supposed to discharge under the said scheme. Such a committee, or the authority, as the case may be, was directed to examine the applications of the petitioners on merits on the basis of eligibility qualifications before the scheme expired on 30-9- I 988. It means that only those units/industries which have acquired the eligibility qualifications before the said date were held eligible for the financial assistance thereunder, but not others. This was, d indeed, the direction given by the Division Bench earlier in Bajrang Extraction I. In this behalf, it is well to remember the distinction between "substantive and mandatory requirement" and "formal and procedural requirement" pointed out by this Court in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes 2 _ a decision which deals with a similar exemption notification. 3. Dr A.M. Singh vi, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-State, sought to raise several factual issues saying that many of the writ petitioners have not acquired the qualifications or had not applied within the date prescribed. We need not deal with the said contention, inasmuch as the direction of the High Court is clear and specific as statedahove. In this view of the matter, we see no ground to interfere in these appeals. 4. Inasmuch as the period of four months prescribed under clause (a) of the aforesaid direction has already expired and since the committee has to undertake the verification of several pending applications, we extend the period prescribed for the committee to complete its work by four months from today. 5 With the above directions, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. 6. There will be no order on the application for intervention.