JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not granting the subsidy and rejecting the application. 2. The petitioner company had a licence of manufacturing of Industrial Explosives and Detonators and the commercial production started on 12.3.1981 in its first phase. The second phase was started on 1.1.1982 in respect of manufacture of Detonating Fuse. The third phase for manufacturing of Slurry Explosives started on 26th June, 1984. A scheme was announced by the Government of Rajasthan to grant subsidy to all industries in Dholpur. The application was submitted by the petitioner on 12th June, 1985 to the Director of Industries for disbursement of subsidy to the petitioner. Correspondence continued between the petitioner and the Industries Department and the deficiencies as pointed out from time to time are alleged to have been completed/complied. It is stated that for the first time on 28th February, 1988, the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled for subsidy on account of being not registered under the Subsidy Scheme. Number of requests were made to waive the condition of registration and finally the petitioner was informed on 21.4.1988 that since the certificate regarding registration under the Subsidy scheme is not produced, the claim cannot be entertained, but as soon as the certificate is produced the matter would be placed before the Committee for re-consideration. The petitioner alleged to have submitted the application for registration on 29th April, 1988 and again on 10th May, 1988. Request was also made that the application for registration be treated effective from 10th June, 1985. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14th March, 1989 that the scheme was operative till 30th September. 1988 and has not been extended. The matter of the petitioner was considered by the Committee on 2nd July, 1983 (sic) and since the investment was made before registration, the application was rejected. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not informed regarding condition of registration after the application was submitted in 1985 and that the condition of registration is not mandatory condition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Baldwa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Bhilwara v. Union of India, 1994 (3) WLC (Raj.) 276 . The decision of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Baldwa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Bhilwara v. Union of India, 1994 (3) WLC (Raj.) 276 . The decision of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1992 SC 152 has also been relied upon. 3. Mr. Kasliwal learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has submitted that vide Circular dated 30.12.1983 it was pointed out that the procedure and format etc. of the scheme published by the Central Government known as 10% Central Out-right/Grant or Subsidy-1971 for industrial unit to be set-up in selected back-ward districts or areas shall be applicable. The Central Subsidy Scheme was amended from 1.3.1973 and the percentage of subsidy was increased to 15%. At the time when the application for registration for subsidy was submitted on 12th June, 1985 the petitioner was not eligible as it was not registered with the Department of Industries under the Subsidy Scheme. The Committee in its meeting on 15th October, 1987 found that the company has not assigned any reason of its non-registration under the Subsidy Scheme before submitting the application for grant of subsidy and accordingly the petitioner was informed on 25th February, 1988. The waiver which was sought could not have been permitted since the company had made the investment during the period from 12.8.83 to 30.6.1984 and the claim for subsidy is permissible for the period three years back to the date of registration. The subsidy scheme has been dis-continued on 31.12.1988. Since the petitioner was not registered, he was not entitled for the subsidy. The registration for claiming the subsidy is required to be made prior to, the investment. 4. I have considered over the matter. The scheme for 10% Central Out-right Grant Subsidy for industrial unit to be set-up in selected back-ward districts or areas as published in the Gazette of India dated 26th August, 1971 provided, the procedure for claiming out-right Grant/Subsidy, in para-5 is as under "5. Procedure for claiming outright grant or subsidy : Industrial units in selected districts/areas will get themselves registered with the State Department concerned prior to taking effective steps for setting up the new units or undertaking substantial expansion of the existing units and indicate their assessment of the total additional fixed capital likely to be invested by them. Procedure for claiming outright grant or subsidy : Industrial units in selected districts/areas will get themselves registered with the State Department concerned prior to taking effective steps for setting up the new units or undertaking substantial expansion of the existing units and indicate their assessment of the total additional fixed capital likely to be invested by them. Such of the units as have taken `effective steps' prior to the date of announcement of the scheme but after 1.10.1970 will get themselves registered by 31.12.1971." 5. The Circular dated 30.12.1983 has only informed that the State Government shall provide the subsidy in respect of the investment made during the period 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1985 and Dholpur was classified in 'D' category. 6. From the above Clause-5 of the notification dated 26th August, 1971 the benefit of subsidy is to be given to those industrial units which are registered with the State Department concerned prior to taking effective steps for setting up the new units or undertaking substantial expansion of the existing units. This has contemplated two things : i.e. (i) not only that such units should be registered but (ii) such registration should be prior to the setting-up or the expansion of the unit. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were not registered with the State Department nor even an application was moved prior to taking effective steps for setting up or for expansion. The scheme has not contemplated either of the conditions but it is of cumulative effect, both the conditions must be fulfilled before the claim for subsidy is made. The decision of this Court in the case of Baldwa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (supra); a question was that the application for release of Central Subsidy was moved on 18th August, 1988. The scheme was in force till 30th September, 88 but, no decision was taken by the respondent up to the last date the scheme remained in force. In these circumstances when the petitioner was found otherwise eligible, the delay on the part of the respondent was considered a ground not to defeat the claim of the petitioner, the doctrine of promissory estoppel was also invoked. The petitioner in that case was found to have fulfilled substantive requirement. In these circumstances when the petitioner was found otherwise eligible, the delay on the part of the respondent was considered a ground not to defeat the claim of the petitioner, the doctrine of promissory estoppel was also invoked. The petitioner in that case was found to have fulfilled substantive requirement. The fact of the case and the controversy involved here is altogether different and no assistance can be drawn from the said decision because it has to be considered as to whether the condition of registration with the State Authority is a substantive requirement or only a procedural requirement and whether the petitioner was bound to comply with it. 7. The decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (supra) has also no application to the facts of the present case as in that case the Notification was issued on 30th June, 1969 providing for certain incentives to the entrepreneurs starting new industries. This Notification was amended on 11th August, 75 in which a condition was inserted that until permission of renewal is granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the industry should not be allowed to adjust the refunds. The challenge was in the condition with the subsequent notification prescribing such a condition alleging it not applicable and the eligibility which has been earned by the petitioner could not be lost because of such amendment. The Apex Court observed that the conditions may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy while some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. A distinction was drawn between the provisions of statute which are of substantive character and were built in with certain specific objectives of policy on the one hand and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature on the other. The assessee was found to have satisfied all the conditions and the subsequent requirement of permission was held not justified. It may be observed that if an assessee is found to be entitled or eligible and as such a certificate is issued then the rider to avail that benefit with permission of an authority was considered as procedural and would not effect the substantive right for claiming of the benefit. In the present case the requirement of Clause-5 of the Scheme provides the eligibility. In the present case the requirement of Clause-5 of the Scheme provides the eligibility. The eligibility requirement is always a basic requirement and to be considered as substantive part of the scheme. If a person is not eligible then the procedure in which a benefit is to be availed of could not be considered which may not be of substantive nature. The condition of registration with the State Government and that too prior to taking effective steps for setting up or expansion of the industry cannot be considered a procedural requirement. It may be correct that the respondents have not expeditiously disposed of the application and the scheme came to an and ultimately. The Circular on the basis of which the petitioner claims that no such condition of registration is provided is not the scheme in itself and contains only the classification of the districts where the scheme is operative in accordance with the scheme. It is the duty of the petitioner and its officer to have examined the scheme before submitting the application and, if for any reason they have failed to do it the respondents cannot be blamed. The various letters and correspondence which have been produced also do not fulfil the requirement of Clause-5 of the Scheme and, as such, the petitioner being not eligible for even moving the application, direction by this Court cannot be given for subsidy. 8. The petition having no force is accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******