Judgment :- B.N. Patnaik, J. The petitioner which is a firm by name ' Arya Durga Industries', Hosangadi being represented by its Managing Partner has sought for issue of a direction to respondents to disburse the Central subsidy at 15% and the State subsidy at 10% due on the total investment of Rs. 1,11,525/-. 2. The erstwhile Kannur District in Kerala was declared as an industrially backward area. The new district of Kasaragod was carved out from that district later. This District was also considered to be an industrially backward area. In order to encourage new entrepreneurs the Government of India and the State Government introduced a scheme for outright grant of subsidy for the industrial units set up in those backward districts. Ext. P1 is that scheme which came into effect from 26.8.1971 in respect of Kannur District. The share of subsidy of the Central Government was 15% and that of the State Government was 10%. The petitioner's firm, which is a factory engaged in the manufacture of ice cream in Kasaragod District applied for grant of such subsidy in pursuance of Ext. P1 scheme. The petitioner invested Rs. 1,11,525/- for purchase of a vehicle to carry on the business of the industry. Ext. P2 dated 21.1.88 is the cash voucher in support of the purchase of vehicle. By Ext. P3 dated 18.9.87, the District Industries Centre, Kasaragod requested the Manager, Syndicate Bank to grant a term loan of Rs. 1.14 lakhs being the cost of machineries and transport with a repayment schedule of 60 monthly instalments. By Ext. P4, the District Industries Centre sanctioned subsidy of Rs. 38,102/- towards the cost of transport. By Ext. P5 the District Industries Centre sanctioned Rs. 6,113/- as the State's contribution. But the Central Government, respondent No. 4 and the Syndicate Bank, respondent No. 5 herein declined to release the balance amount inspite of the request of the petitioner. A lawyer's notice was sent as per Ext. P8 dated 3.4.91. By Ext. P9 dated 29.4.91, the petitioner was intimated that as per the Government of India letter No. 15(4) DBA II dated 22.9.88, the goods carriers had already been excluded from the purview of the Central Investment Subsidy. Hence the claim of subsidy on account of purchase of the goods vehicle was rejected. The petitioner has challenged this order in this Original Petition. 3. Hence the claim of subsidy on account of purchase of the goods vehicle was rejected. The petitioner has challenged this order in this Original Petition. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 and 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, it is stated that since the subsidy for goods carriers has been withdrawn by Government of India, the claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed. 4. The only question for consideration is whether the respondents are bound to release the subsidy amount in favour of the petitioner on the basis of a promise made in Ext. P1. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner has purchased the vehicle on 21.1.88. By then the petitioner was entitled to get the subsidy amount in accordance with Ext. P1 scheme. Later the Central Government withdrew that concession for some reason or other. It is not pointed out in Ext. P9 that the withdrawal of this concession relates back to any of the purchases made prior to 22.9.88. There is also no case made out by respondents that the said Government order dated 22.9.88 had any retrospective effect. 6. The Supreme Court in Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 590) considered a similar question relating to the exemption from tax granted to small scale industries for a certain period under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. This package of concessions was granted to new small scales Industries in order to boost industrialisation in State. But there was curtailment of concessions by a subsequent order. It was held that small scale units set up in response to first order and before passing of subsequent order are entitled to plead estoppel. Such units would be entitled to get all concessions granted by first order. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "It is not disputed that the first order namely, the one dated 11.4.1979 gave more of tax exemption than the second one. The second notification withdrew the exemption relating to purchase tax and confined the exemption from sales tax to the limit specified in the proviso of the Notification. All parties before us who in response to the order of April 11,1979 setup their industries prior to 21.10.1980 within the State of Kerala would thus be entitled to the exemption extended and/or promised under that order. All parties before us who in response to the order of April 11,1979 setup their industries prior to 21.10.1980 within the State of Kerala would thus be entitled to the exemption extended and/or promised under that order. Such exemption would continue for the full period of five years from the date they started production." 7. The Karnataka High Court in Garments International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1991 Karnataka 52) held that any unilateral withdrawal of cash assistance retrospectively promised under the Central Government Export Assistance Scheme is invalid by virtue of promissory estoppel. It observed as follows: "Where the Central Government announced Export Assistance Scheme declaring cash assistance at particular rate on export of certain materials, the unilateral withdrawal of the cash assistance retrospectively would be invalid by virtue of promissory estoppel. The Central Government has acted without the due diligence and in violation of its own earlier promises in which the exporters reposed absolute faith and confidence and ventured to continue their export business with the foreign buyers. After all the exporters were seeking the cash assistance which was compensatory in nature promised by the Central Government." 8. The Delhi High Court in Old Village Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (AIR 1993 Delhi 321) followed the decision of Karnataka High Court, while considering the withdrawal of grant of cash compensatory benefit for industries which are engaged in the export of ready made garments. In that case also the Government withdrew the concession with retrospective effect. While agreeing with the dictum laid down by the Karnataka High Court, the Delhi High Court said that retrospective withdrawal of benefit of cash assistance under the scheme introduced by the Government is violative of doctrine of promissory estoppel. 9. In this case also by Ext. P1, Central Government and the State Government together had promised to grant subsidy to the extent of 25% (15% + 10%) on the investment of goods carriage. In pursuance of that scheme the petitioner purchased the goods carriage in January, 1988, when the scheme was in force. But the concession was withdrawn in September, 1988. Therefore, the denial of subsidy to the petitioner on the investment prior to September, 1988 is illegal and unjust. As per the decisions laid down by Karnataka and Delhi High Courts, promissory estoppel would also apply to the facts of the case. But the concession was withdrawn in September, 1988. Therefore, the denial of subsidy to the petitioner on the investment prior to September, 1988 is illegal and unjust. As per the decisions laid down by Karnataka and Delhi High Courts, promissory estoppel would also apply to the facts of the case. For the reasons stated above, the orders of the Central and the State Governments declining to pay subsidy amount as claimed are quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents, Central Government and State Government are directed to release the amount of subsidy to which the petitioner is entitled, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs.