Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD finally, with consent. ( 2. ) BY filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the respondents commanding them to issue/release the amended eligibility certificate to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to avail of the facility of deferment of payment of tax for the additional period of two years from December 1, 1997 to November 30, 1999. ( 3. ) INDEED, in view of short controversy or I would say so-called controversy, it is really not necessary to narrate the facts much less in detail. It is not disputed by the State--the respondents that on June 16, 1998 (anncxure F), the decision has been taken by the Stale Level Committee to grant/issue the necessary amended eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to claim the benefit of sales tax up to November 30, 1999. Indeed, it was also informed to the petitioner with a request to execute the supplementary agreement (annexure G ). ( 4. ) THE need to file a writ arose because despite the aforesaid decision having been taken on March 11, 1998 by the State, have been informed to the petitioner on June 16, 1998/july 13, 1998 and petitioner having complied with, by their letter dated July 13, 1998, the State did not issue actual eligibility certificate. The only reply of State is that since certain matters in relation to grant of subsidy are pending with the State and hence, the certificate is not issued. In my opinion, it is no defence at all. ( 5. ) HEARD Shri G. M. Chafekar, learned Senior Counsel with Shri C. R. Pancholia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Mukati, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. ( 6. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the writ and issue writ of mandamus as prayed by the petitioner. Indeed, the State has no case to oppose the writ. The State has not denied any of the averments of the writ and hence, the petitioner is entitled for writ. Indeed, the State has no case to oppose the writ. The State has not denied any of the averments of the writ and hence, the petitioner is entitled for writ. When a decision is taken to grant the benefit, by a competent authority, when it is informed to the petitioner, when it is not then withdrawn, then I fail to appreciate the working of the State in not allowing a person concerned to enjoy the benefit. Even in this Court, the State had no reply except to say that due to pendency of some cases (not even in relation to petitioner), the implementation was deferred. It is in my view no defence. ( 7. ) PETITION, thus, succeeds and is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued against the respondents to issue necessary eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner on the basis of decision taken by the State Level Committee in its meeting on March 11, 1998 and communicated to the petitioner on June 16, 1998. Let the certificate be issued within three months from the date of this order. No costs.