JUDGMENT 1. :- These two special appeals are filed against the same order dated 21.5.1999 of the learned Single Judge [reported in 1999(2) R1.R 1381 and, therefore, they are decided by the common order.The facts relevant, in brief, are that the Central Government vide its notification dated 26.8.1971 formulated a Central Investment Subsidy Scheme in releation to the industries which were set up in the areas notified as Category 'A', 'B' and 'C'. The backward districts were eligible for grant of Central Investment Subsidy at the specified percentage of the total investment subject to the ceiling stipulated therein. Under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, Udaipur district was notified as 'B' category district. M/s. Earnest Industrial Gases Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') submitted an application for grant of Central Investment Subsidy under the Scheme introduced by the Government of India vide notification dated 26.8.1971. The application was scrutinised and examined by the State Level Committee and after examining the application it was communicated to the Company by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') vide its letter dated 7.6.1988 that as the maximum limit has already been availed of by another unit which is sister concern in which the Managing Directors and Promotors are common i.e. in the name of M/s. Earnest Industrial Gases Private Limited, the Company is not entitled for the Central Investment Subsidy. A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting of the State Level Committee held on 19.5.1988 was also sent to the Company. The Company challenged the rejection of its applicaiton for grant of subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2660/1980 (sic 2660/90) (Earnest Industrial Gases Private Limited Vs. Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others) . In the said writ petition the Company challenged the action in relation to rejection of its application and further prayed that while sanctioning the subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, interest should also be paid at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay in disbursement of the central investment subsidy in terms of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme. The interest was claimed from the date the Company became entitled to the said subsidy and upto the date of actual payment of the amount of subsidy. The interest was claimed from the date the Company became entitled to the said subsidy and upto the date of actual payment of the amount of subsidy. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 24th of April, 1995 held that ......In my view, therefore, in a case where the application has been considered before 30.9.1988 and the subsidy was not granted for a reason which may or may not be sustainable under law, at later stage the respondents cannot raise a plea that the scheme has come to an end. The respondents were not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the scheme has come to an end....." and directed the respondents (in writ petition No. 2660/80) [sic 2660/90] to pass an order on the application of the Company after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Company within a period of three months from the date of submission of copy of the order. 2. After the decision of the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition, the matter was once again examined afresh by the State Level Committee on 10.10.1995 and the Committee, prima facie, found the Company to be eligible for release of central investment subsidy and made recommendation to that effect to the Central Government. The Government of India vide its order dated 4.2.1997 conveyed the sanction for payment of rupees thirteen lac and fifty thousand to the Director of Industries, Rajasthan for disbursement to the Company. In compliance thereof, the subsidy amount was paid by demand draft to the Company on 19.2.1997. That after the said subsidy was sanctioned and paid to the Company, the Company filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3038/97 in this Court making a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents (in writ petition) i.e. the Union of India and Rajasthan Finance Corporation to pay a sum of rupees thirty eight lac thirteen thousand and fifty as compensation to the Company within a period of one month of passing of the order or within such period as may be specified by the court with future interest on the said amount at the rate of 21% per annum till payment. This petition was filed on the ground that on account of unqualified and unreasonable delay in grant of subsidy, the Company has suffered the loss and is entitled to be compensated. This petition was filed on the ground that on account of unqualified and unreasonable delay in grant of subsidy, the Company has suffered the loss and is entitled to be compensated. The Union of India and the Corporation entered appearance and contested the claim made by the Company on the grounds, inter alia, that in the earlier writ petition, No. 2660/80 (sic 2660/90) a prayer was made for release of interest from the date the subsidy became due till the actual payment which was not accepted by the court and, therefore, the present writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable. It was only a case of delayed payment of subsidy; the application was rejected after due consideration which might have not been accepted by the court and on remand it was again examined and considered to release the same. Thus no directions can be given for payment of interest. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide its order dated 21.5.1999 and directed the Union of India and the Corporation (the respondents in the writ petition) to pay interest on the amount of subsidy released to the Company from the date it has become due till it has been paid at the rate of 12% per annum. It is this decision which is challenged by the Corporation and the Union of India by filing above mentioned two special appeals. The learned Single Judge while arriving at the conclusion that the Company was entitled for interest, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1989) 4 SCC 297 (Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade) . The learned Single Judge has held that the Company was entitled to the subsidy on the basis of circular issued by the Central Government as other Institutions which were paid subsidy in the year 1986. It was held by this court that it was the duty of the State authorities to have paid the subsidy if the application of the establishment has been made prior to the date. The mandamus having been given, the Central Government had paid the subsidy after reconsideration of the matter which was to be paid in the year 1986. It was held by this court that it was the duty of the State authorities to have paid the subsidy if the application of the establishment has been made prior to the date. The mandamus having been given, the Central Government had paid the subsidy after reconsideration of the matter which was to be paid in the year 1986. The company was deprived of its money of rupees thirteen lac fifty thousand unlawfully as has been held by this court in the writ petition filed by the company and had the amount been paid to the company, the company would have deposited the amount with the lending agency and could have saved its payment of interest. The company did suffer and, therefore, is entitled for the interest. 4. It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that the learned Single Judge proceeded"with the case with assumption that in the writ petition No. 2660/90 the direction was given by the court for payment of subsidy amount to the company respondent. A perusal of the writ petition No. 2660/90 filed by the Company dearly indicates that the prayer was made by the Company for release and disbursement of the central subsidy with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay in disbursement of the central investment subsidy in terms of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme and the interest be ordered to be paid from the date the company became entitled to the said subsidy upto the date of actual payment of the amount of subsidy. The learned Single Judge by its order dated 24.4.1995 neither issued any mandamus for release and disbursement of the subsidy to the company nor any direction regarding interest thereon. The direction was only to the effect, that the Central Government to consider the case of the company on merit and not to reject the application on the ground that the scheme has come to an end on 30.9.1988. The respondents (in writ petition No. 2660/90) were directed to pass an order after giving an opportunity to the company of hearing within a period of three months from the date of submission of copy of the order. Thus the court has only given direction for consideration of the application of the company after giving due opportunity of hearing. The respondents (in writ petition No. 2660/90) were directed to pass an order after giving an opportunity to the company of hearing within a period of three months from the date of submission of copy of the order. Thus the court has only given direction for consideration of the application of the company after giving due opportunity of hearing. The directions were issued that application 'should not be rejected on the ground that the scheme has come to an end. The writ issued by the court dearly indicates that the authorities were permittd to consider the application of the company afresh on merits. There was no direction issued by the court that the company is entitled for subsidy and the subsidy should have been sanctioned and disbursed to the company under the central investment subsidy scheme. 5. The Government of India in the year 1971 announced a scheme in the name Central Outright Grant/Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for industrial units to be set up in selected backward districts/areas. Any industrial unit engaged in manufacturing of items specified in Part 'B' of Annuxure-II of the Scheme were eligible to claim 10%-15% of the Central investment subsidy under the Scheme provided such industrial units are located in areas specified in part (A) of Annexure II and are also covered by the period of commencement and duration. The existing industrial units in manufacture of items specified in part (B) of Annexure H were also made eligible to claim 10%-15% Central Investment Subsidy under the scheme provided such industrial units are located in areas specified in part (A) of Annexure II and are also covered within the duration of the scheme. The industrial units desirous to have the central investment subsidy under the scheme were required to supply the information and documents namely; project report, details of the scheme including the details of the fixed assets to be acquired, sanction letter from the financial institution sanctioning the loan or loans for the purpose of implementing the project, if the project is under implementation a certificate from the Chartered Accountants regarding capital expenditure incurred on the project and a certificate from an Engineer as prescribed in Section 5(6)(b) certifying the civil work done. Thereafter when these formalities are complied with, the Scheme requires the Disbursing Agency to examine the applications and determine the eligibility of the industrial unit. Thereafter when these formalities are complied with, the Scheme requires the Disbursing Agency to examine the applications and determine the eligibility of the industrial unit. All the cases after due scrutiny were required to be referred to the State Level Committee constituted under the Scheme with the suitable recommendation for final decision. Thus the Disbursing Agency is only a forwarding agency with its recommendation for grant of subsidy to a particular industrial unit, the final authority being rested with the State Level Committee. Under the Scheme, the State Level Committee was required to go into the merits of each case to decide whether the industrial unit is qualified for grant of central investment subsidy under the scheme and will also determine the quantum of central investment subsidy admissible to the industrial unit and thereafter the subsidy is sanctioned by the State Level Committee and the subsidy is disbursed. 6. The entire reading of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme makes it abundantly clear that the industry is not entitled to subsidy as of right on its filing an application for grant of subsidy during the duration of the Scheme. The Disbursing Agency is duty bound to find out and to determine the eligibility of the industrial unit for grant of subsidy and to submit its recommendation for final decision of the State Level Committee. The State Level Committee is also required to go into the merits of each case to decide whether the industrial unit is qualified for grant of central investment subsidy. The State Level Committee is required to take the decision on scrutiny on merits of each individual case. Thus it cannot be said that the company was entitled for grant of subsidy under the Scheme simply because of the fact that the application had been moved by the company. Whether the subsidy is to be granted or not, has to be decided by the State Level Committee on consideration of each case on its merits. It appears to us that it is because of this the learned Single Judge by its order dated 24.4.1995 (in writ petition no. 2660/90) did not direct the respondents to grant and disburse the subsidy to the company although the prayer was made to that effect. Directions were given for consideration of the case of the company on merits without taking into consideration that the scheme has come to an end. 2660/90) did not direct the respondents to grant and disburse the subsidy to the company although the prayer was made to that effect. Directions were given for consideration of the case of the company on merits without taking into consideration that the scheme has come to an end. In the original writ petition no. 2660/90 the plea of the respondents (therein) was to the effect that the scheme has come to an end and the question was also raised whether the company was entitled for subsidy because the sister unit has already been granted subsidy. In our view the company was not entitled for grant of subsidy on the date of application moved but it was entitled for subsidy only when due sanction was made by the State Level Committee. 7. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (supra), the respondent took four policies on his own life from Life Insurance Corporation. These policies were paid up. Subsequently the respondent assigned absolutely all those policies in favour of his wife and the Life Insurance Corporation registered the assignment so made. Prior to the date of maturity of the policies the Income Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay to the Income Tax Officer forthwith any amount due from the Life Insurance Corporation to or, held by the LIC for or on account of the respondent to meet the amount due from him as arrears of income tax. The assignee sent a notice to the LIC reiterating that the policies had been absolutely assigned to her as admitted by the LIC, as a result of which the amount payable against the same had to be paid only to her since the amount was not held by the LIC for or on account of the respondent. The LIC was also required by that notice to take the necessary steps for revocation of the Income Tax Officer's notice and to make the payment due in respect of all these policies to the assignee. Ultimately the Income Tax Officer withdrew the notice under Section 226(3) of the Act. The LIC was also required by that notice to take the necessary steps for revocation of the Income Tax Officer's notice and to make the payment due in respect of all these policies to the assignee. Ultimately the Income Tax Officer withdrew the notice under Section 226(3) of the Act. The UC paid the amounts due but disputed its liability to pay interest thereon for any period after the date of maturity on the ground that the delay was occasioned by the ITV's notice under Section 226(3) of the Act. The non-payment of the interest was challenged in the Court. The Apex Court held that the assignee of the policies who had become entitled to receive the amounts due thereunder on the dates of their maturity must be compensated by the LIC for its failure to perform its statutory obligation under Section 226(3)(vi) of the Income Tax Act within a reasonable time and directed payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The present case is distinguishable on its own facts. In LIC's case the assignee of the policies was entitled for the amounts due thereunder on the dates of their maturity and was not paid the amounts by the LIC on its failure to perform its statutory obligations. The interest was awarded by the Apex Court on the ground that the amounts due were not paid on account of the inaction on the part of the UC. In the present case the amount was not due to the Company as we have already held, on his filing an application for grant of subsidy under the Scheme. The amount became due only on sanction of the subsidy by the State Level Committee on consideration of the application on merits and thus the company was not entitled for interest on the amount of subsidy simply because it has moved the application for grant of subsidy. 8. In AIR 1966 SC 275 (Union of India v. Whatkins Mayor and Company) the Supreme Court has said that it is well established that interest may be awarded for the period prior to the date of the institution of the suit when there is an agreement for the payment of interest at fixed rate or when interest is payable by the usage of trade having the force of law, or under the provisions of any substantive law. Under the Interest Act, 1839 the court may allow interest to the plaintiff if the amount claimed is a sum certain which is payable at a certain time by virtue of a written instrument. But where the amount claimed is compensation for unliquidated amount and not a sum certain, the Act has no application and no interest can be grained on the amount claimed. The provision that "interest shall be payable in all cases in which it is now payable by law" only applies to cases in which the Court of Equity exercises jurisdiction to allow interest. To invoke a rule of equity, the existence of a state of circumstances which attracts the equitable jurisdiction, as for example, the non-performance of a contract of which equity can give specific performance, has first to be established. 9. In AIR 1938 PC 67 (Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited Vs. Ruttanji Ramji) the Judicial Committee has said as follows: "As observed by Lord Tomlin in Maine and New Brunswick Electrical Power Co. v. Hart, (1929) AC 631, at p.640: ( AIR 1929 PC 185 at p.188) , 'In order to invoke a rule of equity it is necessary in the first instance to establish the existence of a state of circumstances which attracts the equitable jurisdiction, as, for example, the non-performance of a contract of which equity can give specific performance." In AIR 1966 SC 395 (The Union of India Vs. The West Punjab Factories Limited) the Apex Court has laid down that in the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied, or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, it is not possible to award interest by way of damages.There is neither an agreement for payment of interest nor the company has established usages of trade having the force of law for payment of interest nor the interest is payable under any substantive law. There is no contract between the parties to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the court for grant of interest. The company was not entitled for subsidy as of right. The entitlement of subsidy was only after the subsidy is sanctioned and not before that and, therefore, we do not find any equity in favour of the company to enable it to claim any interest on the amount of subsidy. The company was not entitled for subsidy as of right. The entitlement of subsidy was only after the subsidy is sanctioned and not before that and, therefore, we do not find any equity in favour of the company to enable it to claim any interest on the amount of subsidy. The direction of the leaned Single Judge awarding interest to the company is contrary to law and is hereby set aside. 10. We do not find any ground to uphold the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the Corporation (appellants) that the decision in the previous writ petition operates as res judicata in regard to the interest. The petition was allowed and directions were issued for reconsideration of the application of the company for grant of subsidy. There was no occasion for the court to pass any order in regard to the interest. 11. There is yet another reason for dismissing the writ petition filed by the company. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. M/s. Orient Enterprises and Another reported in AIR 1998 SC 1729 , the question involved was whether a writ petition under Artile 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief of payment of interest on delayed refund of the amount paid by the assessee towards the customs duty, redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 was maintainable. The Apex Court has held that at the relevant time there was no statutory right entitling the respondents for payment of interest on delayed refund and the writ petition filed by them was not for the enforcement of a legal right available to them under any statute. The writ petition seeking the relief of payment of interest on delayed refund of the amount so collected could not be maintained. The cases cited where directions have been given for payment of interest, were distinguished on the ground that the interest was awarded by way of a consequential relief alongwith the main relief while setting aside the order of imposing the tax and duty. In the present case the relief is a consequential relief for interest without there being any relief sought for grant of subsidy. In the present case the relief is a consequential relief for interest without there being any relief sought for grant of subsidy. Obviously it being already granted to the Company, the writ petition seeking only interest for so called delayed payment on the amount of subsidy, was not maintainable and should have been dismissed.For the aforesaid reasons appeals are allowed, judgment of the learned single judge is set aside, but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to the costs.Spl. Appeals Allowed. *******