All these Civil Rules involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, I propose to dispose of the Civil Rule by a common judgment and order. 2. In all the civil Rules the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, namely, the State Government in not disbursing the transport subsidy which the petitioners claim to be entitled to as per the Transport Subsidy Scheme of 1971. 3. The facts for the purpose of dispose of these Civil Rules may be narrated as follows : In order to promote the growth of industries in different parts of the country the Government of India made a scheme known as 'Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971' and a notification was issued to that effect. This scheme came into force on various dates from 15.7.71 to 5.12.77 and it was extended from time to time and the last extension period came to an end on 31.3.95. Pursuant to the said scheme the petitioners acted upon and thereafter made claim for subsidy. All the petitioners received transport subsidy for certain period thereafter, disbursement has not been made though sanctioned. As per the scheme, so far the State of Assam is concerned, the essential procedure to be followed for grant of transport subsidy is that the eligible unit is to submit its claim with all relevant data duly certified by a qualified Chartered Accountant to the District Industries Centre where the claims are checked and verified. Proper claims are, thereafter, passed and placed before the State Level Committee for its consideration. Such claims after sanction by the State Level Committee are disbursed to the concerned unit through various agencies like Assam Financial Corporation, Assam Industrial Development Corporation, etc.' So far the petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute as regards their eligibility to receive the transport subsidy. In the meetings of the State Level Committee held on various dates different amounts had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. However, the said amounts have not been paid to the petitioners. Hence the present petitions. 4.1 have heard Mr. R.Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos. 1515 of 1993 and 2087 of 1993, Mr. PK Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Rule No.2877 of 1993 and Ms. However, the said amounts have not been paid to the petitioners. Hence the present petitions. 4.1 have heard Mr. R.Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos. 1515 of 1993 and 2087 of 1993, Mr. PK Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Rule No.2877 of 1993 and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos.1658 of 1993, 2062 of 1993, 2652 of 1993,2990 of 1993 and 2991 of 1993. I have also heard Ms. A. Hazarika, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, Dr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf Assam Industrial Development Corporation and Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel. 5. Mr. Gogol, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Rule Nos. 1515 of 1993 and 2087 of 1993 submits that the petitioners are existing companies on business of manufacture and sale of plywood products. After the scheme came into force the petitioners submitted all the necessary documents which were verified and, thereafter, accepted. Pursuant to the scheme the petitioner companies spent some money and they were entitled to transport subsidy. The petitioner companies were given transport subsidy for sometime, but thereafter, the subsidy amounts have not been disbursed on the ground of financial constraints. Mr. PK Goswami and Ms. M. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of other petitioners also submits that the petitioners on whose behalf they appear are also similarly situated and they are also entitled to get transport subsidy as per the said scheme. Giving details of their respective claim, the learned counsel submits that the claims were in respect of the period when the scheme had been in force. Mr.Goswami and Ms. Hazarika further submits that on the basis of the incentive given in the aforesaid scheme the petitioners had acted upon, spent money on the basis of the assurance given and the State Government also disbursed transport subsidy for certain period, but thereafter stopped disbursement on the ground of financial constraints. 6. The State of Assam - respondent No.l has not filed any affidavit. The Union of India has filed affidavit-in-opposition in Civil RuleNo.1515 of 1993. In the affidavit-in-opposition the Union of India has stated thus : “... the contention of the petitioners' made in ... 6. The State of Assam - respondent No.l has not filed any affidavit. The Union of India has filed affidavit-in-opposition in Civil RuleNo.1515 of 1993. In the affidavit-in-opposition the Union of India has stated thus : “... the contention of the petitioners' made in ... to the effect that “the scheme provides that the disbursement of the amounts to which an unit may be entitled shall be made from the advances granted to the State Government for Centrally sponsored scheme and balances will be a matter of reimbursement to the State Government” is denied and disputed by the deponent. As per the provisions as contained in the scheme, after having scrutinised and settled the claims the amount disbursed to industrial units should first be adjusted against the outstanding ways and means of advances made to the State Government/Union Territory Administration for centrally sponsored scheme and the balance, if any, shall be paid in cash to State Government/Union Territory Administration.” In short, it is the State Government which is to make the disbursement first from the ways and means of advances and to take steps for the balance, if any. 7. Though affidavit-in-opposition has not been filed on behalf of the State Government. Ms. A. Hazarika, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam has placed before this Court a letter dated 15.7.95 addressed to her by the Joint Director (SP) and Nodal Officer, Directorate of Industries, Assam, Guwahati. Along with the said letter summary statement of amounts of subsidy in respect of different companies was sent. In the aforesaid letter the Joint Director has informed that due to budgetary limitation the outstanding amounts could not be sanctioned and disbursed. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were eligible to get transport subsidy during the period when the scheme was in force and that the petitioner companies acted on the basis of the scheme. Ms. A. Hazarika also submits that the subsidy amounts could not be disbursed because of the financial constraints. When a scheme is made giving incentive and inviting the industrialists or the manufacturers to take the opportunity of the scheme and they acted upon it, the State Government cannot deny the benefit of the scheme on the ground of financial constraints or budgetary limitation. When a scheme is made giving incentive and inviting the industrialists or the manufacturers to take the opportunity of the scheme and they acted upon it, the State Government cannot deny the benefit of the scheme on the ground of financial constraints or budgetary limitation. In these cases also the petitioners are entitled to get transport subsidy on the basis of 1971 Scheme for the period when the scheme was in force. Accordingly, respondents are directed to make the payment within a period of 6 (six) months from today.