In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to cancel the letter dated 11.10.89 of the Director of industries, Manipur, to the Senior Govt Advocate, Manipur, for placing the minutes of the State Level Committee meeting held on 28.9.89 before this Court and for a direction on the respondents to make a payment of Central Investment Subsidy of Rs.23.28 lacs, less the amount already paid, to the petitioner. 2. The facts briefly are that on 26.8.71, the Central Govt announced a Scheme of Central Investment Subsidy for Industries set up in backward areas which included the districts of the State of Manipur. M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill, a partnership firm, submitted an application on 26.7.74 to the Govt of India, Ministry of Industries & Civil Supplies, Department of Industrial Development for grant of industrial licence for setting up a Roller Flour Mill of an annual capacity of 36,000 MTs and on 22.3.75, the Govt of India, Ministry of Industries & Civil Supplies, Department of Industrial Development issued a Letter of Intent in favour of M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill for setting up of Roller Flour Mill. A loan of 12.5 lacs was then sanctioned by the Assam State Financial Corporation by letter dated 27.9.76 in favour of the said M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill for setting up of the said mill. The partnership firm thereafter started construction and installation of Roller Flour Mill and on 19.9.79 applied to the State Level Committee for Central Investment Subsidy. When the State Level Committee did not sanction the Central Investment Subsidy, the said partnership firm, M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill, moved this Court in Civil Rule No.27 of 1979 for appropriate relief. During the pendency of the said civil rule, however, an amount of Rs.4,71,418 was sanctioned and paid. When the State Level Committee did not sanction the Central Investment Subsidy, the said partnership firm, M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill, moved this Court in Civil Rule No.27 of 1979 for appropriate relief. During the pendency of the said civil rule, however, an amount of Rs.4,71,418 was sanctioned and paid. In the meanwhile, the said firm faced difficulties in procuring the controlled commodities mainly building materials such as mild steels, RS joints, cements and GCI sheets, for construction of the Roller Flour Mill and in the circumstances there was delay in execution of the said project and as a result of such delay the cost of the project escalated and a revised project report had to be prepared with the help of North Eastern Industrial Consultant Ltd and as per the revised project report the cost of the project worked out at Rs.1.08 crore and the same was submitted on 16.1.88 before the Director of Industries, Govt of Manipur, who was the Member-Secretary of the State Level Committee. Thereafter, by a letter dated 22.9.88 of the Ministry of Industry, Govt of India, the Central Investment Subsidy was discontinued for non-manufacturing units. But by a subsequent letter dated 21.7.89 of the Govt of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, the State Govt was informed that on representations of various State Govt it had been decided that the Govt of India would continue to reimburse the State Govt in respect of the subsidy disbursed to non-manufacturing units, if certain conditions were satisfied. Civil Rule No.27 of 1979 was then disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 14.9.89 with a direction to the State Level Committee to reconsider whether the petitioner-firm M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill was entitled to get the Central Investment Subsidy under the scheme approved by the Govt of India in view of the changed circumstances conveyed by the Govt of India, Ministry of Industry, by the aforesaid letter dated 21.7.89. Pursuant to the said directions in Civil Rule No.27 of 1979, the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.9.89 took a view that under the letter dated 21.7.89 of the Govt of India, Ministry of Industry, reimbursement to the State Govt of subsidy disbursement to the non-manufacturing units was permissible provided the project was approved by the State Level Committee before 30.9.88. But the case of the petitioner M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill (which has now converted into a private limited company in the meanwhile) was not approved by the State Level Committee before 30.9.88. At the said State Level Committee's meeting held on 28.9.89, it was further decided to place this fact before this Court and by the impugned letter dated 11.10.89 of the Director of Industries to the Senior Govt Advocate, Manipur, and the aforesaid fact relating to the decision of the State Level Committee was placed before this Court. 3. At the hearing of this writ petition. Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the aforesaid M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill, which was a partnership firm, was now converted into a private limited company styled as Manipur Janata Flour Mill Private Ltd. He submitted that the view taken by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 29.8.89 that the petitioner was not entitled to the Central Investment Subsidy is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He cited a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesha Textile & another vs. Union of India & another (Civil Appeal No. 6240/94 disposed of on 5.12.95) in which the Supreme Court has agreed with the view taken by Mrs Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, in her order passed on 16.11.95 that all applications for Central Investment Subsidy filed upto 30.9.88 could be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy provided that the said applications were completed in terms of the Scheme dated 26.8.71 as modified from time to time. He took me through the Scheme dated 26.8.71 as modified from time to time and submitted that the application for Central Investment Subsidy had been filed by M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill well before 30.9.88 and that the said application was complete in terms of the Scheme dated 26.8.71 as modified from time to time. In particular, Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh referred to paragraph 2.3 of the Manual for Central Investment Subsidy Scheme in which the informations/documents which were to accompany the application for Central Investment Subsidy were given and submitted that all informations/documents were furnished by the said firm along with its application. In particular, Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh referred to paragraph 2.3 of the Manual for Central Investment Subsidy Scheme in which the informations/documents which were to accompany the application for Central Investment Subsidy were given and submitted that all informations/documents were furnished by the said firm along with its application. Hence, it is a fit case where a direction should be issued to the State Level Committee to sanction and disburse the amount of Rs.23.28 lacs, less the amount of Rs.4,71,718 already received by the said firm. In support of this submission, Mr. Nandakumar took me through the order dated 16.11.95 of Mrs Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Industry with which the Supreme Court, agreed while disposing of Civil Appeal No.6240/94. 4. Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singlvlearned Senior Govt Advocate, Manipur, on the other hand, submitted that it was clear from the letter dated 21.7.89 that in case of non-manufacturing units such as Roller Flour Mill, subsidy could be reimbursed from the State Govt only if the project was approved by the State Level Committee before 30.9.88 and hence the decision of the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.9.89 was in consonance with the said letter dated 21.7.89 and there was no violation of the direction of this Court in the order h dated 14.9.89 in Civil Rule No.27 of 1979. He, however, stated that in the subsequent order of the Supreme Court dated 5.12.95 in Civil Appeal No.6240/ 94, the Supreme Court has agreed with Mrs Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Industry, that all application filed upto 30.9.88 would be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy provided the applications were complete in terms of the Scheme dated 26.8.71 as modified from time to a time. Mr. L Shyamkishore Singh then referred to the Scheme dated 26.8.71 and pointed out that under the said Scheme and in particular para 5 thereof the industrial units in the selected districts/areas were required to get themselves registered with the State Department concerned prior to taking effective steps for setting up the new units. But M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill though initially was registered provisionally with the District Industries Centre, Imphal, its provisional registration had expired with effect from 30.4.89, last extension having been obtained upto 29.4.89. But M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill though initially was registered provisionally with the District Industries Centre, Imphal, its provisional registration had expired with effect from 30.4.89, last extension having been obtained upto 29.4.89. Mr, Shyamkishore Singh, learned Senior Govt Advocate, Manipur further pointed out that under the Scheme, along with an application for Central Investment Subsidy, a copy of the latest audited accounts of the unit is to be enclosed, but no such latest audited accounts of M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill was enclosed along with its application for Central Investment Scheme and only a Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 19.8.88 certifying that the petitioner had invested a sum of Rs.47,03,735.20 in fixed assets upto 31.3.88 was furnished. 5. I am unable to accept the aforesaid submission of Mr. L. Shyam Kishore Singh, learned Senior Govt Advocate, Manipur. Para 5 of the Scheme detailed in the notification dated 26.8.71 on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Shyamkishore Singh, learned Senior Govt Advocate, Manipur is extracted herein below: “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 indicated their assessment of the total additional fixed capital likely to be invested by them. Such of the units as had 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...” It is clear from what has been provided in para 5 quoted above that all that is required is that the industrial units in the selected districts/areas must get themselves registered with the State Department concerned prior to taking effective steps for setting up the new units. In the instant case, prior to taking any effective steps M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill has applied for industrial licence and had been issued with the Letter of Intent dated 22.3.75 by the Govt of India, Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies to set up the Roller Flour Mill with an annual capacity of 36,000 MTs. But thereafter by a Press Note dated 9.7.86 and the notification dated 8.8.86, Roller Flour Mills were exempted from licensing provision of the Industries Development and Regulation (Act), 1951, and they were only required to register themselves with the Director of Industries for statistical purposes. But thereafter by a Press Note dated 9.7.86 and the notification dated 8.8.86, Roller Flour Mills were exempted from licensing provision of the Industries Development and Regulation (Act), 1951, and they were only required to register themselves with the Director of Industries for statistical purposes. Accordingly, on 29.10.86, M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill got itself provisionally registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit with the District Industries Centre, Imphal under the Director of Industries. The validity of the said provisional registration certificate was initially extended upto 29.10.88 by order dated 11.8.88 of the District Industries Centre, Imphal and thereafter extended upto 29.4.88 by order dated 5.11.88. The fact that the said provisional registration certificate has not been extended beyond 29.4.89 cannot possibly disentitle the petitioner from the Central Investment Subsidy under the said para 5 of the Scheme quoted above.This is because prior to taking effective steps M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill had been issued with a Letter of Intent by the Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies, Department of Industrial Development, Govt of India on 22.3.75 and had been thereafter provisionally registered on 29.10.86 as soon as the Press Note dated 9.7.86 and the notification dated 8.8.86 were issued. 6. Regarding non-furnishing of the copy of the latest audited accounts of the unit, it appears from the xerox copy of the application for Central Investment Subsidy filed as Annexure 1 along with the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondent Nos 1,3,4 and 8 that the copy of the latest audited accounts of the unit was enclosed along with the application. This is clear from item 7 at page 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. L. Nandakumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, states that in fact such a copy of the latest audited accounts of the unit was enclosed along with the application for Central Investment Subsidy. He has also filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith copies of the audited balance sheets of the petitioner firm as on 31.3.86, 31.3.87 and 31.3.88 and it appears that the said balance sheets have been prepared and signed by the Auditor on 19.12.86,19.7.88 and 18.7.88 respectively ie, well before 30.9.88. He has also filed a supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith copies of the audited balance sheets of the petitioner firm as on 31.3.86, 31.3.87 and 31.3.88 and it appears that the said balance sheets have been prepared and signed by the Auditor on 19.12.86,19.7.88 and 18.7.88 respectively ie, well before 30.9.88. Thus, in case, copies of the latest audited accounts were not filed with the application by the petitioner, the respondents could have asked the petitioner to file the same and the petitioner was in a position to file the same before 30.9.88. 7. In the order dated 5th December, 1995 in the case of Umesha Textile & another vs. Union of India & another (Civil Appeal No. 6240/94), the Supreme Court has agreed with the order dated 16.11.95 of Mrs Pratibha Karanr Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Govt of India, that all applications for Central Investment Subsidy filed upto 30.9.88 should be considered provided the said application were complete in terms of the scheme dated 26th August, 1971 as modified from time to time. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the order of Mrs Pratibha Karan passed on 16.11.95 are relevant for this case and are extracted herein below: “17. The Scheme, as brought out above, was extended from time to time. The final extension was given on 3.5.1988 when the Scheme was extended upto 30.9.1988 when it finally expired. A copy of the notification dated 3.5.1988 is available at Annexure D. It is noticed that on many occasions short extensions were granted. However, looking to the wording of the notification dated 3.5.1988, it cannot be construed that the extension was only for the purpose of considering cases in the pipeline and that applications filed after a certain date, though during the validity of the Scheme, should not be considered. In my view, since the Scheme was in operation upto 30.9.88, any application made prior to and upto that date should be considered provided it was complete in most material particulars. To bring an element of a cut off date prior to the Scheme ending, at this point of time and with retrospective effect militates against all norms of fair play. To bring an element of a cut off date prior to the Scheme ending, at this point of time and with retrospective effect militates against all norms of fair play. Besides, it needs to be appreciated that the Central Subsidy Scheme had a national objective that of promoting the industrialisation of selected backward areas with the obvious hope that this would uplift such backward areas and generate greater employment opportunities in them. Therefore, fullest opportunity must be given to the entrepreneurs coincident with the letter of the notification extending the Scheme a upto 30.9.1988 as otherwise it would defeat the purpose of the Scheme with enterpreneurs who would have kept in mind the deadline of 30.9.1988 having may be to abandon their projects midway for want of funds. 18. Having said so, I am of the view that all applications filed upto 30.9.88 should be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy provided the applications so filed were complete in most material particulars. For deciding as to whether an application is complete in most material particulars, recourse has to be had to the provisions of the Manual for the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme. The application is required to be made in prescribed form as per Annexure III of the Manual and filled with details/documents mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of para 2.3 of the Manual which lays down the procedure for claiming subsidy. The details of the documents required to be submitted along with Annexure ( III are also brought out in para 4 of the note above. Therefore, if an application is filed by 30.9.88 according to the prescribed procedure, complete in most material particulars, it should be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy, on the merits of each case.” I agree with the view of Mrs Pratibha Karan in the aforesaid paragraph 17 of the aforesaid order quoted above that the Central Investment Subsidy had a national objective that of promoting the industrialisation of selected backward areas with the obvious hope that this could uplift such backward areas and generate employment opportunities in them and that since the Scheme was in operation upto 30.9.88, any application made prior to and upto that date should be considered provided it was complete in most material particulars. In fact, agreeing with the e aforesaid view of Mrs Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary Ministry of Industry, Govt of India, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid order dated 5.12.95 in the case of Umesha Textile & another vs. Union of India & another has further directed in relation to the cases before the Supreme Court that all applications filed before 30.9.88 may be considered by the High Courts afresh for grant of Central Investment Subsidy provided the applications were complete under the Scheme and as per the said order of the Supreme Court, the High Court was to keep in view the said order passed by Mrs Pratibha Karan and take its own decision on the merits of each case. In the present case, the only ground given by the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 28.9.88 for rejecting the application of M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill (now converted to M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill Private Ltd) for Central Subsidy Scheme was that the said State Level Committee had not approved the case of M/s Manipur Janata Flour Mill before 30.9.88. This ground given by the said State Level Committee though originally was consistent with the instructions contained in the letter dated 27.7.89 of the Ministry of Industry, Govt of India has not found favour with Mrs Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Govt of India in her order dated 16.11.95 quoted above or with the Supreme Court in its aforesaid order dated 5.12.95. In the Affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondent Nos 1, 3, 4 and 8 however, two more grounds have been given for not considering the application of the petitioner for Central Investment Subsidy, namely, that the provisional registration of the petitioner had expired and therefore it was no longer a registered unit, and that copies of the latest audited accounts had not been enclosed along with the application for Central Investment Subsidy. I have already held in this judgment that the petitioner had in fact taken effective steps for registration of its unit in accordance with the Scheme and that expiry of the validity of the provisional registration certificate can not disentitle the petitioner for Central Investment Subsidy. I have already held in this judgment that the petitioner had in fact taken effective steps for registration of its unit in accordance with the Scheme and that expiry of the validity of the provisional registration certificate can not disentitle the petitioner for Central Investment Subsidy. I have also held in this judgment that the audited balance sheets of the petitioner for the years ending 31.3.96,31.3.97 and 31.3.88 were all prepared and signed by the Auditor before 30.9.88 and had they been called for by the respondents, the petitioner would have submitted the same before 30.9.88. Thus the grounds given by the respondents even in their Affidavit-in-opposition for not considering the application of the petitioner for Central Investment Subsidy on its on merit are not at all tenable. Further, in paragraph 18 of the order dated 16.11.95 of Mrs. Pratibha Karan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Industry, Govt of India, quoted above, it has been mentioned that the application was to be filed by 30.9.88 in the prescribed form as per Annexure III of the Manual for the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme and must be filled with the details/documents mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of para 2.3 of the Manual, and if the said application was filed by 30.9.88 and was complete in most material particulars, it should be considered for grant of Central Investment Subsidy on the merits of each case. Since in their Affidavit-in-affidavit filed before this Court, the respondents have not pointed out any other defect in the application of the petitioner for Central Investment Subsidy and have not stated that any of the details/documents mentioned in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of para 23 of the said Manual for Central Investment subsidy Scheme had not been filed, the petitioner is entitled to a direction from this Court for consideration of its application for Central Investment Subsidy on its own merits. 8. 8. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order alongwith copies of the audited accounts of the petitioner for the years ending 31.3.86,31.3.87 and 31.3.88 by the Director of Industries, Govt of Manipur, the State Level Committee, will consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits and pass orders thereon in relation to grant of Central Investment Subsidy, less the amount already received by the petitioner. 9. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.