JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—These writ petitions (C. W. Ps. No. 1860 of 1993 and 340 of 1994) between the same parties are being disposed of by common judgment, as these involve similar questions of facts and law. 2. Petitioner-1 is a private limited company, petitioner-2 is its Managing Director and petitioner-3 is its Director. On 7-8-1987 petitioner-1 was registered as small scale industrial unit. On its application it was sanctioned term loan of Rs. 47 lacs by respondent H. P. Financial Corporation by letter dated 5-12-1987 (Annexure P-5 to C. W. P. No. 1860/93). The project cost of its unit and means of finances, as appraised by the respondent-Corporation are given herein below :— A. Cost of Project SI. No. Descriptions Loan in lacs I. Land 3.50 2. Site Development 1.33 3. Building 20.66 4. Plant and Machinery 28.90 5. Misc. Fixed Assets 13.20 6. Preparative and Prelimary expenses 5.05 7. Contingencies 6.28 8. Margin Money 103 Total : 85,95 B. Means of Finance 1. Term Loan From HPFC 47.00 2. Central Investment Subsidy 19.18 3. Deferred Payment of land L49 4. Promoters Contribution 18.28 Total: 85.95 3. The case of the petitioners is that in order to give insentives to the industrial units established at Baddi, there was a scheme of grant of subsidy, which was sanctioned in their favour by State Level Committee on 3012-1988 as intimated to them by letter dated 11-1-1989 (Annexure P-6 to C W. P. No. 1860/93) after about one year from the date of sanction of loan in their favour on 5-12-1987. According to the petitioners, out of total sanctioned amount of subsidy of Rs. 19,10,750, only an amount of Rs. 4,30,750 was disbursed on 4-3-1989 and an amount of Rs. 2,02,250 was disbursed on 13-6- 989 and the remaining amount of Rs. 12,77,750 was not disbursed despite several requests made by them. Instead the respondent-Corporation arm twisted the petitioners for applying for another loan of Rs. 13 lacs by giving there first recall-cum-take over notice dated 11-3-1991. (Annexure P~9 to C W. P. No 1860/93) under section 29/30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act). The additional loan of Rs 13 lacs was sanctioned in their favour on 27-3-1991. Further case of the petitioners ii that the additional loan only added to their financial burden and did not help them in any manner in establishing their business. The additional loan of Rs 13 lacs was sanctioned in their favour on 27-3-1991. Further case of the petitioners ii that the additional loan only added to their financial burden and did not help them in any manner in establishing their business. Thereafter, another recall-cum-take over notice dated 9-2-1993 was issued, which was challenged by the petitioners by filing C. W. P. No. 182 of 1993. In the said writ petition this Court by order dated 21-12-1993 directed the petitioners to submit a proposal of rescheduling the repayment of loan within a period of six weeks and to deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs on or before 16-4-1994 to show their bona fide. The petitioners did not avail this opportunity. Neither they paid the amount of Rs. 1.50 lacs nor made representation within the stipulated period. However, they submitted their representation dated 31-3-1994 which was received by the respondent-Corporation on 6-4-1994 Thereafter, the petitioners withdrew C. W; P. No. 182 of 1993 on 26-4-1994. The representation of the petitioners did not find favour with the respondent-Corporation and it was dismissed on 3-5-1994 Again for the third time, recall-cum-take over notice dated 6-5-1994 (Annexure PT to C; W. P. No; 340/94) was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to make payment of entire dues amounting to Rs 78,76,013 alongwith future interest, failing which the respondent-Corporation shall take over the possession of their industrial unit and mortgaged properties under section 29 of the Act on 20-5-1994 at 11.00 a m. 4. The petitioners have filed C. W. P. No. 1860 of 1993 praying for release of remaining amount of subsidy and for restraining the respondent-Corporation from implementing second recall-cum-take over notice dated 9-2-1993 (Annexure P-8 to C. W. R No. 1860/93) The other C. W. P. No. 340 of 1994 was filed for quashing third recall-cum take over notice dated 6-4-1994 (Annexure PT to C. W. P. No 340/94), Another relief sought for in C. W. P. No. 340 of 1994 is that the case of the petitioners be forwarded to respondent-State Level Institutional Committee for the rehabilitation of their industrial unit. When C. W. P No. 340 of 1994 came up before this Court on 17-5-1994, interim order to the limited extent was passed restraining the respondent Corporation from selling the industrial unit of the petitioners, with the result the possession of the industrial unit and mortgaged properties was taken over on 20-5-1994 in implementation of the impugned recall-cum-take over notice. Therefore, in both the writ petitions there remains two reliefs for the consideration of this Court that on the facts and circumstances on record (i) whether the petitioners are entitled to remaining amount of subsidy under the Scheme and (ii) whether third recall-cum-take over notice dated 6-5-1994 deserves to be quashed? 5. The respondents have filed separate reply-affidavits in both the writ petitions. The stand of first and second respondents t e. State of Himachal Pradesh and the Director of Industries in C. W. P. No. 1860 of 1993 is that the subsidy amount of Rs 19,10,750, which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 30-12-1988 was to be disbursed to them by the respondent Corporation as per creation of assets-by the petitioners from time to time. Similarly, the respondent-Corporation in its reply-affidavit has explained that disbursement of subsidy was linked with creation of assets from time to time. According to it, for availing full subsidy amount of Rs 19,10,750, the petitioners were required to create assets to the tune of Rs 76,43,000 on or before 31-12-1989, whereas, they could create assets of Rs. 29,73,000 for which subsidy amount of Rs 6,31,000 was released in their favour. However, in order to meet the gap of balance amount of subsidy, additional term loan of Rs, 13,00,000 was sanctioned in their favour keeping in view the sound business principles. It is also stated that the respondent-Corporation was simply acting as an agent of the State/Central Government for disbursement of sanctioned amount of subsidy to the industrial units financed by it strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, which was operative upto M 12-1989. With regard to third recall cum-take over notice dated 6-5-1994, in its reply-affidavit to C. W. P. No. 340 of 1994, the case of the respondent-Corporation is that it was issued as a last resort when the petitioners failed to make repayment of the loan amount in accordance with the loan agreement and also an amount of Rs. With regard to third recall cum-take over notice dated 6-5-1994, in its reply-affidavit to C. W. P. No. 340 of 1994, the case of the respondent-Corporation is that it was issued as a last resort when the petitioners failed to make repayment of the loan amount in accordance with the loan agreement and also an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as ordered by this Court on 21-12-1993 in C. W P. No. 182 of 1993. 6. The petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply-affidavit of the respondent Corporation traversing its contention that the petitioners them selves had delayed the implementation of the project and failed to create the fixed assets expeditiously to avail the full subsidy amount before 31-12-1989. They have tried to show that it was the respondent-Corporation who was responsible for getting the subsidy amount sanctioned in their favour after about one year from the date of sanction of the loan as they had failed to put up complete papers of their case before the State Level Committee in its earlier meetings. The petitioners have further given an instance of delay in encashment of a cheque of instalment of loan and subsidy for about three months to show that the respondent- Corporation was not dealing in business like manner and was responsible for delaying the release of loan and subsidy instalments, which resulted into delay in completion of their project and creation of assets The petitioners have also placed on record an agreement dated 20-1-1989 (Annexure P-I2 to C. W. P. No 1860/93) entered into between them and the respondent-Corporation on behalf of the Union of India in respect of payment of subsidy amount of Rs. 19,10,750 to the petitioners. Consequent to this agreement, a charge under the provisions of section 132 of the Companies Act, 1956 was also registered with the Registrar of Companies at Jalandhar on 9-3-1989 (Annexure P-13 to C. W. P. No. 1860 of 1993). 7. The third respondent-Union of India by its reply to C. W. P. No. 1860 of 1993, has placed on record the Central Outright Grant/Subsidy Scheme, 1971 as amended from time to time to explain that it was a Scheme for specified period and not open-ended one. 7. The third respondent-Union of India by its reply to C. W. P. No. 1860 of 1993, has placed on record the Central Outright Grant/Subsidy Scheme, 1971 as amended from time to time to explain that it was a Scheme for specified period and not open-ended one. It is further stated that, "The Scheme worked on reimbursement basis i.e. the subsidy was first disbursed to the eligible industrial units by the Slate Government or its designated disbursing agency in the first instance and then the reimbursement of the subsidy so disbursed was claimed from the Central Government. The State Level Committee/District Level Committee (SLC/ DLC) was creation of the Scheme which was the authority to sanction the subsidy When the Scheme expired on 30 09-1988, there could be no SLC/ DLC in existence after that. In the case of the petitioner the subsidy was sanctioned by the SLC on 30-12-1988, which is after the expiry of the Scheme. In the absence of a sanction during the operation of the Scheme, it cannot be said that there is commitment or promise on the part of Union Government to pay subsidy the Scheme envisaged a procedure and guidelines according .to which if the subsidy is sanctioned before the expiry of the Scheme, a right can accrue to the petitioner. When no sanction has been made before the expiry of the Scheme, principle of promissory. estoppel cannot be invoked in this case. On the facts of the case, it is clearly established that there is neither a promise nor representation made by the respondents to the petitioner". 8 We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is vehemently urged by shri D.D. Sood learned Counsel for the petitioners, that once subsidy of Rs. 19,10,750 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners vide letter dated 11-1-1989 (Annexure P-6 to C. W. P. No. 1860/93) for which agreement dated 20-M989 (Annexure P-2 to C. W. P No. 1860/93) was executed, its payment could not be slopped on the ground that the Scheme was in operation till 31-12-1989 upto which date the petitioners failed to create requisite fixed assets, which was a pre-requisite for disbursement of subsidy amount. Shri Sood has invoked the principle of promissory estoppel to argue that the respondents are estopped from withholding the amount of subsidy, as the petitioners had decided to establish their industrial unit at Baddi and also planned it keeping in view the subsidy available under the Scheme In support of his contention Shri Sood has cited number of judgments of the Supreme Court in respect of promissory estoppel, to which we will refer to in the later part of our judgment Another point raised by Shri. Sood is that once subsidy amount was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, it could not be withheld on the ground that the Scheme was not extended beyond 31-12-1989 without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to explain the circumstances under which they could not avail full amount of subsidy for the fault of the respondent-Corporation. 9. On the other hand, Shri A. K- Goel, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in A. P. State Financial Corporation v. tiffs, Gar Re-Rolling Mills and another, (1994) 2 SCC 647, has argued that on the facts and circumstances on record, the petitioners are not entitled to reliefs prayed for by them being the defaulting party in the present writ petitions, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Shri Goel has further argued that the respondent-Corporation was only an agency to disburse the subsidy amount sanctioned by the State Level Committee against creation of assets by the industrial unit. According to him neither at the time of sanctioning the loan on 5-12-1987 nor at the time of sanctioning subsidy amount nor at the time of executing agreement dated 20-1-1989 any protnise was held out to the petitioners that they will be granted full amount of subsidy of Rs. 19,10,750 irrespective of their fulfilling the condition of creating proportionate fixed assets, as the petitioners have failed to create fixed assets to get full amount of subsidy before 31-12-1989, the cut out date fixed under the scheme for disbursement of the subsidy amount, the full amount of subsidy could not be given to them. However, they were given subsidy amount of Rs 6,33,000 as they could create proportionate fixed assets to the extent of Rs. 29,73,000 upto 31-12-1989. However, they were given subsidy amount of Rs 6,33,000 as they could create proportionate fixed assets to the extent of Rs. 29,73,000 upto 31-12-1989. Shri Goel has also urged that there is nothing on record to draw a conclusion that the respondent-Corporation was responsible in any manner for delay in sanctioning the subsidy amount by the State Level Committee and also for the delay in creating fixed assets of the industrial unit of the petitioners before 31-12-1989 to enable them to earn full amount of subsidy. 10. Shri P. A. Sharma, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for Union of India, referring to the Scheme (Annexures R-I to R-HI filed alongwith reply-affidavit of Union of India) has gone to the extent of saying that no subsidy could be granted to the petitioners as the decision by the State Level Committee was taken on 31-12-1988, much after the last date i. e. 30-9-1988 fixed under the Scheme by letter dated 21-7-1989 (Annexure R.3 to the reply of union of India). According to Shri Sharma, under the Scheme no promise was held out to the petitioners that they would be entitled to 25% subsidy by establishing their industrial unit at Baddi. He has pointed out that under the Scheme entitlement to subsidy is linked with creation of fixed capital investment by the industrial unit, which the petitioners had failed to create upto 31-12-1989, the last date fixed for disbursement of subsidy amount vide letter dated 21-7-1989 (Annexure R-3 to the reply of Union of India), assuming their project was approved by the State Level Committee before 30-9-1988. The learned Counsel for the respondents have also argued that there cannot be any dispute in respect of the principle laid down in various judgments of the Supreme Court cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in respect of the principle of promissory estoppel but in the absence of any promise held out to the petitioners, the ratio of the said judgments is not applicable in the present case. 11. After giving our best consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find that in the facts and circumstances proved on record any promise was held out to the petitioners that subsidy amount of Rs. 11. After giving our best consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find that in the facts and circumstances proved on record any promise was held out to the petitioners that subsidy amount of Rs. 19,10,750 will be paid to them on the establishment of their industrial unit at Baddi despite the Scheme of grant of subsidy being in operation. While sanctioning loan amount to the petitioners vide letter dated 5-12- J987 (Annexure P 5 to C. W. P. No. 1860/93), one of the stipulations, namely, stipulation No. 10 was that, "The promoters shall undertake to invest funds equivalent to the amount of central subsidy in case the same is not sanctioned in their favour". Further, in the letter dated 11-1-1989 (Annexure P-6 to C. W P. No. 1860/ 93) whereby the petitioners were informed that subsidy amount of Rs. 19,10,750 was sanctioned in their favour, it was made clear that, "The said sanction of subsidy is subject to the conditions prescribed under the Scheme". It is also stated that the amount of subsidy was determined on the basis of evidence furnished by the petitioners that the fixed capital investment of the proposed unit would be Rs. 76,43,000. But for claiming the disbursement the petitioners were to furnish Engineers Certificate certifying the value of completed civil works and a Certificate from Chartered Accountants certifying the value of plant and machinery acquired on the site as well as expenditure incurred towards construction of buildings with the list of machinery in the prescribed profound as and when fixed assets were created by them. 12. In the agreement dated 20-11989 (Annexure P-12 to C. W. P. No. 1860/93), it was reiterated that the petitioners would be entitled to subsidy amount only if they would abide by the terms of the Scheme and create fixed assets of Rs. 76,43,000 and would not commit breach of any of the terms of said agreement. 12. In the agreement dated 20-11989 (Annexure P-12 to C. W. P. No. 1860/93), it was reiterated that the petitioners would be entitled to subsidy amount only if they would abide by the terms of the Scheme and create fixed assets of Rs. 76,43,000 and would not commit breach of any of the terms of said agreement. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioners were liable to reimburse to the respondent Corporation the whole or any part of amount of subsidy obtained by it with interest at the rate of 15% per annum if ultimately the respondent-Corporation would decide that the petitioners have failed to abide by the terms of the Scheme and the agreement or they have been paid excess amount than the amount to which they were entitled. 13. Therefore, from these documents it is clear that the payment of subsidy was linked with creation of fixed assets by the petitioners So far the point that who was responsible for the delay in creation of fixed assets is concerned, it is disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in these proceedings on the material placed before us. However, the fact remains that fixed, assets were not created by the petitioners upto 31-12-1989 to claim disbursement of full subsidy amount sanctioned in their favour. We are also satisfied that the Scheme under which subsidy was to be provided to the petitioners was "a period specific and not "an open-ended one". By letter dated 21-7-1989 (Annexure R-III to the reply of Union of India) the amount of subsidy could be reimbursed by the State Governments through their agencies, provided the following conditions were satisfied, namely: (1) The project was approved by the Approval Committee i. e. the State Level Committee or the District Level Committee, as the case may be, on or before 30th September, 1988. (2) The disbursements are made before 31st December, 1989. 14. We do not accept the submission made by Shri P. A Sharma that in the present case the petitioners were not entitled to any subsidy, as their project was not approved by the State Level Committee on or before 30-9-1988 It is correct that the subsidy amount of Rs. (2) The disbursements are made before 31st December, 1989. 14. We do not accept the submission made by Shri P. A Sharma that in the present case the petitioners were not entitled to any subsidy, as their project was not approved by the State Level Committee on or before 30-9-1988 It is correct that the subsidy amount of Rs. 19,10,750 was sanctioned by the State Level Committee in its 66th Meeting held on 30-12-1988 but this date cannot be taken as date of approval of the project of the petitioners by the State Level Committee for granting them subsidy under the Scheme. Though it has not been pointed out by either party as to when the project of the petitioners was approved by the State Level Committee yet it should be before 30-9-1988 as the industrial unit of the petitioners stood registered on 7-8-1987 as Small Scale Industrial Unit and while granting them loan on 5-12-1987 by the respondent-Corporation, it was pointed out that they were eligible to be considered for grant of subsidy but as we have discussed above, even after the approval of the project and sanction of the subsidy amount, it could be disbursed in proportionate to the fixed assets created by the petitioners before 31-12-1989, which was the second condition set out in the letter dated 21-7-1989 (Annexure R-III to the reply of Union of India). Therefore, we hold that the respondent-Corporation was within its right to withhold the balance amount of subsidy of Rs. 12,77,750 and no direction can be issued to it to pay this amount to the petitioners. 15. In view of our findings we further hold that the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by the learned Counsel for tire petitioners in respect of principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The latest judgment of the Supreme Court on the principle of promissory estoppel are Kasinka Trading and another v. Union of India and another, (1995) 1 SCC 274 and Darshan Oils Pvt Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, (1995) 1 SCC 345, in which most of the earlier judgments on the said principle have been discussed but we need not refer to law laid down in these judgments in the present context. 16. 16. Further, in view of our findings there is no substance in another submission of Shri D. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that following the principle of natural justice, the petitioners were required to be afforded an opportunity before the balance amount of subsidy was with held. At the time of sanction of loan amount as well as subsidy amount the petitioners knew that payment of subsidy was linked with creation of fixed assets, as such, no notice was required to them for not disbursing the balance amount of the subsidy. Moreover, we find that representations filed by the petitioners for disbursement of the balance amount were duly considered by the respondent Corporation and additional loan amount of Rs. 13,00,000 was sanctioned in their favour on 27-3-1991 to fill in the gap in the cost of their project, which the petitioners had availed 17. Now coming to the challenge of the petitioners to third recall-cum-take over notice dated 6-5-1994, we find that no relief can be granted to them in view of their withdrawal of C W. P. No. 182 of 1993 unconditionally hoping that their proposal of rescheduling the repayment of loan would be accepted. Moreover, the petitioners have not shown their bona fide by depositing a sum of Rs 1,50,000 within a period of six weeks as directed by Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 21-12-1993 passed in the said C. W. R No, 182 of 1993. By now it is well settled in U. P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cop (India) Pvt. Ltd and others, (1993) 2 SCC 299 ; A. P. State Financial Corporation v M/s. Gar Re-Rolling Mills and another (supra) arid U. P. Financial Corporation and others v. M/s Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas Ltd and another, JT 1994 P) SC 551, that the Courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of Financial Corporation in commercial matters, as it has to take its decision to retrieve its dues in accordance with the material on record and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations and unless its action is mala fide or for extraneous considerations, it cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. It is also held that interference by the Court in exercise of equitable relief or extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not called for in favour of a defaulting party like the petitioners. The Financial Corporation has to recover loan and advance so as to give financial assistance to other industries, for which purpose it has been given powers under section 29 of the Act. 18. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in these writ petitions and these are dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.