( 1 ) VALIDITY of clarification and the show-cause notice issued by the Development Commissioner of Small Scale Industries, Ministry of Industry, Government of India have been assailed. It was observed in the clarification as under: "if the fixed investment on plant and machinery of one or more units (clubbed together) set up by common proprietor/part-ner (s)/director (s) within the country for the manufacture of similar/different product (s) exceeds the fixed investment ceiling prescribed in the definition of small scale/ancillary industrial undertaking, then all such units would be liable for de-registration". It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that subsequently the Department of small Scale Industries, have issued a clarification on 17-5-1993 where it was observed thus: "it should be understood that industrial undertaking is different from its form of ownership. The forms of ownership as stated in the notification are of three types viz. , proprietary, partnership and company. As per clauses C (i), C (ii) and C (iii) of the notification the provisions of "controlled" and "clubbing" will apply only to similar forms of ownership of industrial undertakings, e. g. an industrial undertaking owned by a proprietary concern cannot be clubbed with one owned as a company or an industrial undertaking owned by a partnership firm cannot be clubbed with an industrial undertaking owned as a proprietary concern irrespective of the concerned persons (proprietor, partner or equity holder) being common. In other words, in the above examples the provisions of "controlled" and "clubbing" will not apply". ( 2 ) IT is pointed out that in the case of M/s. Konark Industries v The Joint Director (SSI), in view of the circular of the Government of India, show-cause notice issued were considered as otiose. Clarification dated 15-3-1989 refers to setting up of the unit by common proprietor, partner/director. A proprietor can be a common, if he is the same person. Similarly a partner can be common if two firms are constituted with similar number of partners. Same is the position of a company having common Director. If the number of partner/directors differs, then it cannot be said that the unit is set up with common partner or Director. The intention has been clarified by the subsequent clarification dated 17-5-1993 where the controlling power was considered as the criteria for clubbing of two units. Same is the position of a company having common Director. If the number of partner/directors differs, then it cannot be said that the unit is set up with common partner or Director. The intention has been clarified by the subsequent clarification dated 17-5-1993 where the controlling power was considered as the criteria for clubbing of two units. In view of the clarification issued on 17-5-1993, the action of the respondents in issuing the order Annexurc-F in W. P. No. [25224] of 1992 and the show-cause notice in W. P. No. 38247 of 1992 for de-registration cannot be considered to be in accordance with law and therefore they are quashed. Writ petitions are allowed.