Judgment G. L. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to grant subsidy. Petitioner Dr. Prem Sukh Marothi is a medical practitioner. He established a nursing home at Nokha and got himself registered as a small scale industry and provisional certificate was issued to him on 10-11-82 and thereafter permanent certificate was issued to him on 28-9-83. It is averred that it was the declared policy of the State of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Financial Corporation that financial assistance would be provided to small scale industrial units by way of loan at nominal interest and grant of subsidy, and the scheme included the financial assistance on ECG and x-ray machines. The petitioner applied for loan which was granted to him on 11-10-82 vide Annex. 3 and he was directed that he should apply for the subsidy. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the grant of 15% subsidy amounting to Rs. 19,400 vide his application Annex. 4 but the subsidy was not granted to him and RFC infomed vide letters Annx. 5 and 6 that since the unit was service based, it was not eligible to State subsidy. The petitioners case is that the unit was established at Nokha which is backward area for the purpose of industries and because of the directions of the Government of India vide Annx. 7 and 8, the petitioner was entitled to the subsidy. It is averred that subsidy was granted to similar units situated at Jodhpur, Sujangarh and other places ( 2 ) IN the reply, respondent No. 2 i. e. Rajasthan Financial Corporation stated that the application for subsidy was to be considered by the Government and if the subsidy was sanctioned by the Government this respondent could disburse the amount. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, averred that since the petitioners unit was service based, it was not entitled to the grant of subsidy. In support of the reply letter Annx. R/1 dated 10-5-89 has been placed on record. ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Nagori was that the petitioners unit is located in industrially backward area and the petitioner had established the unit on the basis of the scheme declared by the respondents that 15% subsidy would be given and loan would be granted at the nominal rate of interest. ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Nagori was that the petitioners unit is located in industrially backward area and the petitioner had established the unit on the basis of the scheme declared by the respondents that 15% subsidy would be given and loan would be granted at the nominal rate of interest. According to him on the principle of promissory estoppel the respondents are under an obligation to grant subisidy, having granted loan. He argued that the unit of the petitioner which is service based is entitled to the grant of subsidy under the scheme. He referred to the cases of M/s. Baldwa Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1994 (3) WLC (Raj) 276); S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4347/92, M/s. Shri Industries v. State of Rajasthan decided on 22-5-95 and D. B. Special Appeal No. 110/95 - Anandi Devi v. Union of India decided on 20-9-1996. ( 5 ) MR. Bishnoi, learned Dy. Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the scheme has already been discontinued on 30-8-90 and the petitioners unit being service based was not entitled to get subsidy. ( 6 ) MR. Gupta, submitted that it is for the respondent No. 1 to decide the matter. ( 7 ) I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. It has not been disputed that the petitioners unit is located in industrially backward area. It is further not in dispute that loan was sanctioned to the petitioner treating it to be small scale unit. Two questions arise for determination. (1), whether the petitioners unit was entitled to the grant of subsidy, (2) whether even after the scheme has been discontinued on 30-8-90, the petitioner can be granted relief. ( 8 ) COMING to the first point, it may be stated that there is clear direction of the Government of India in Annx. 8 that a unit of x-ray clinic is a small industry and if it was established in rural area, the population of which was less than 5 lacs, it was entitled to get subsidy. In this order Annx. 8, it has been clearly stated that despite being service based industry, it was entitled to all the facilities and the exemptions. That being so, the respondents contention that the petitioner unit was not entitled to the benefit of subsidy scheme as it was service based industry, cannot be accepted. In this order Annx. 8, it has been clearly stated that despite being service based industry, it was entitled to all the facilities and the exemptions. That being so, the respondents contention that the petitioner unit was not entitled to the benefit of subsidy scheme as it was service based industry, cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) THE document Annx. R/1 filed alongwith the reply hardly helps the respondents. It was issued on 10-5-89 i. e. much after the application of the petitioner was rejected vide Annx. 5. Furthermore, in this order there is no mention of the x-ray machine unit. In this circular it has been stated that the units like colour lab, Press, Photo Studio, Typing Institute etc. were not entitled to the facility of subsidy. It is obvious that x-ray unit has not been excluded from the purview of the small scale industry entitled to get subsidy. The letter Annx. R/1, thus, does not help the respondents. ( 10 ) COMING to the second point, it may be stated that according to the reply, the scheme has been discontinued w. e. f. 30-8-90. It is obvious that on 1-4-88 and 29-6-88, on the dates the petitioner was informed about the rejection of his application for subsidy, the scheme was in vogue. The authorities have not properly understood the circular Annx. 8 and has committed error in rejecting the application of the petitioner. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for the grant of subsidy afresh within a period of two months from the placement of this order before the competent authority under the scheme as it was in force up to 30-9-88. ( 12 ) NO order as to costs. Petition allowed. .