JUDGMENT 1. - Both the writ petitions involve the same questions of facts and law, therefore, they are being decided together. The facts are being taken from the writ petition bearing No. S.B.C.W. Petition No. 4480/1996. 2. The petitioners are the registered partnership firms in the name of M/s. Subham Gems and M/s. Indu Gems. Both the writ petitioners are aggrieved against the action of the Rajasthan Government, for not releasing the subsidy, which was required to be released as per the policy. 3. It is stated that the State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation (Hereinafter called as 'RIICO') with a view to develope 'Gem Park' (at Jaipur) had allotted 105 Acres of land in Sanganer Industrial Area Phase-II. The land was to be developed by the RIICO itself for the purpose of development. The RIICO had entered into an agreement with Diamond and Gem Development Corporation, Gem Stone Industrial Park, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur. The development was made by the Gem Development Corporation on behalf of RIICO with the conditions that the RIICO was to charge 25% development charges and after construction of Pucca link road, the RIICO with charge 10 paisa per Sq. metre from the allottees. The relevant provisions of lease deed entered with the said development Corporation has been incorporated in the writ petition itself in Para 2. 4. The RIICO as per the agreement of the lease as incorporated in the writ petition itself, has executed an agreement with the Diamond & Gem Development Corporation for allotment of industrial plots to all the members of the Industrial Corporation and on the basis of the agreement of RIICO and the Development Corporation, the plots were allotted to the industrialists including the petitioners, copy of which is attached as Annex. 2. The petitioner submits that he had established an industry in the area developed by the RIICO. His project was to cost Rs. 8.00 lacs. He had spent almost 50% of the said amount in the land and building and plant and machinery, in addition to it the development charges of above Rs. 74,000/- or so to the Development Corporation. 5. The Government of Rajasthan had framed a scheme for grant of subsidy to new industry for the promotion of the industries in Rajasthan vide notification dated 5.9.90 known as State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme of new industries. 74,000/- or so to the Development Corporation. 5. The Government of Rajasthan had framed a scheme for grant of subsidy to new industry for the promotion of the industries in Rajasthan vide notification dated 5.9.90 known as State Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme of new industries. It was provided in the scheme in clause 3 that only those industries shall be eligible for grant of subsidy which is located in the area developed by the State or its Corporation and shall be eligible for Capital Investment subsidy irrespect of the fact that the industry is located within the municipal limits or not as ultimately amended. The subsidy scheme was remained in force upto March 1997. 6. The petitioner claimed that their's were the new industries installed after 1990 in the industrial area floated by RIICO in Sanganer Industrial Area Phase-II where land was allotted by the RIICO and RIICO was under obligation to develop the same and 25% development charges have been charged from the industrial units for development of the industrial area and this amount was being paid to the RIICO. These conditions have been incorporated in the agreement itself which agreement is annexed as Annex. 5. Vide Annex. 4, the petitioner was informed that he was entitled to the grant of the subsidy of Rs. 68,120/-. He presented time and again but no action was taken. It is stated that the respondents being statutory bodies are bound by the subsidy scheme. It is stated that though an amount of Rs. 68,120/- as subsidy was sanctioned but had omitted to consider an amount of Rs. 1,27000/- while sanctioning the subsidy though the relevant documents were submitted and thus, the petitioner was further entitled to 15% of the subsidy of As. 1,27000/- in addition to the subsidy already sanctioned i.e. Rs. 68,120/-. It is further submitted that he was entitled to 20% subsidy on the machinery also. An averment has been made by the petitioners that subsidy sanction has been accorded to similar situated industries to M/s. Gupta Jewellers Corporation, M/s. Jagan Nath Hari Narayan etc. etc. 7. Prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to disburse the subsidy of Rs. 68,120/- with interest w.e.f. 14.5.93 and also for release of the subsidy of 15% on the amount of Rs. 1,27000/- and also on the plant and machinery. 8. Agreement Annex. etc. 7. Prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to disburse the subsidy of Rs. 68,120/- with interest w.e.f. 14.5.93 and also for release of the subsidy of 15% on the amount of Rs. 1,27000/- and also on the plant and machinery. 8. Agreement Annex. 5 entered into between the State of Rajasthan and the petitioner clearly says that the area where the industry is situated is a developed area of RIICO industrial area. It is also mentioned that on the conditions having been complied with as per the agreement Annex. 5, the petitioner shall be entitled to the subsidy even the amount of subsidy has been mentioned in the agreement. 9. In S.B.C.W. Petition No. 4481/1996, against the amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- as mentioned in the application as subsidy, the sanction has been made by the State Government to the extent of Rs. 1,09,000/-. 10. The petitions have been opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioners would have been entitled to the subsidy, had industrial area been developed by the Government or any of its Corporation but because of the reason that the RIICO had contracted with another Development Corporation to develop the industrial area, therefore, the subsidy clause is not applicable to the petitioners. The arguments being raised on behalf of the State on the face of it is falcious. It makes no difference if the industrial area is developed by the State of one of its Corporation or the State gives on contract to any other Corporation or agency for the purpose of development of the industrial area who hands over back to the State or its Corporation in the present case the RIICO after developing the area. Admittedly the industrial area land had been acquired by the RIICO who in its own wisdom has further appointed an agency known as the `Gem Development Corporation' for developing of the industrial area. The petitioners would have paid the development charges to the RIICO if the development has been made by the RIICO but now they had paid development charges to the Development Corporation. The RIICO is also sharing the development charges to some extent with the Development Corporation. The petitioners would have paid the development charges to the RIICO if the development has been made by the RIICO but now they had paid development charges to the Development Corporation. The RIICO is also sharing the development charges to some extent with the Development Corporation. There is no gain saying that because of the reason that the RIICO had decided to develop the industrial area through a third agency, the scheme of the subsidy will not become applicable on the facts of the case. 11. Even otherwise, there is an agreement between the Government and the petitioners for grant of the subsidy as mentioned in the agreement itself. The agreement is not based as to who has developed the industrial area but the subsidy in the agreement is payable on account of establishment of the industry. The nexus of grant of the subsidy to the industry is to develop the industry in the area. There is no rationale in the argument of the State to say that because of the reason that the Corporation of the Government had decided to get the area developed through an other Corporation, therefore, the very scheme of grant of the subsidy is wiped out. The Government is bound by its agreement entered into between it and the petitioners. Admittedly the allotment of industrial plot was made after the area was developed and agreement was entered into after such development and order of allotment. The agreement itself prescribed and contained the payment of the subsidy which clause of grant of subsidy was incorporated for the reason that the petitioners were asked to establish an industry which was the need of the time for the State. The respondents cannot be permitted to go back and to say that the subsidy is not allowable because of the reason that the respondents itelf asked the private agency to develop the industrial area and had not developed itself. 12. The arguments as advanced, on behalf of the State has no merit and is to be rejected. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to release the subsidy as per the agreement from the date it was due within three months from the receipt of the, certified copy. 12. The arguments as advanced, on behalf of the State has no merit and is to be rejected. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to release the subsidy as per the agreement from the date it was due within three months from the receipt of the, certified copy. If the petitioners are entitled to the subsidy on any other count as mentioned in the agreement that shall also be considered, i.e., the additional subsidy on plant and machinery within three months. In case the order is not complied with within the stipulated period of three months, in that situation the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest on the amount of subsidy from the date due till the payment @ 15% Per Annum. 14. The writ petitions are allowed as per the said directions with the cost of As. 2,000/- per writ petition to be borne by the State.Writ Petition Allowed With Costs of Rs. 2000/- Per Petition. *******