JUDGMENT By the Court—Supplementary counter affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit be taken on record. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not making payment of the subsidy on the total cost of production of film as per film policy of the State Government. 2. In order to give impetus to the film producers, the State of U.P. constituted a society in the name of Film Bandhu in the year 2001 which was duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it has Its own bye-laws. The objects of the Film Bandhu are to develop infrastructure facility for films, Video Film, Documentary Film and Regional Film etc and other films related developments and encouragement as given therein. 3. Film Bandhu is a kind of agency which gives loan/grant to the Film Producer in the State and is entrusted with the supervision of the Film Policy of the State Government. The State Government chalked out a Film Policy in the year 1999, which was revised by the Government in the year 2001. The broad features of the amended policy of the year 2001 are as follows : (i) The Government will provide infra-structure facilities like Processing Lab., Studio, Equipments, training to Artists and Technical Staff, either itself or by arranging for the same. (ii) Providing exemption or reduction in Entertainment Tax to deserving Films produced in the State. (iii) Building or assisting the construction of Multiplexes in the State, (iv) The renovation of old Cinema houses and establishing new Cinema Halls in the State. (v) Providing various facilities and incentives to the Cinema Hall owners for Captive Power Plant Generator, (vi) Development of shooting locations in the State, (vii) Housing facilities for Film Units with regard to shooting purposes (viii) Allowing various government facilities like air-strips etc. to the Film Units shooting films within the State. 4. Clause 23.3 of the Film Policy which is quoted as under provided for subsidy; 23.3. Subsidy : “A subsidy of 25% of the cost of production, subject to a maximum limit of Rs. 10 lac, will be provided to films made in the State in any one of the above mentioned languages. This subsidy will be paid to film processing labs for the expenditure actually incurred in the making of the film. Subsidy : “A subsidy of 25% of the cost of production, subject to a maximum limit of Rs. 10 lac, will be provided to films made in the State in any one of the above mentioned languages. This subsidy will be paid to film processing labs for the expenditure actually incurred in the making of the film. In the first three years, this subsidy can be paid to laboratories situated outside Uttar Pradesh. However, after three years regional films will be able to avail this scheme only if the processing of their films is done by labs situated in U.P. This provision will hopefully stimulate the growth of such lab facilities within the State, Besides, for promotion of such Hindi films also, over 75 percent shooting of which has been completed in the state, a proportionate grant shall be given or the amount of grant will be adjusted with rates of interest of institutional finance for films.” 5. A producer of a film was entitled to get subsidy of the given amount, in case the conditionsmentioned therein are full filled. Later on the amount of Rs. 10 lacs was increased to Rs. 20 lacs in the Film Policy 2002, There is a dispute regarding the enforcement of the Film Policy 2002 on the ground dial it has not been approved by the State Government, though it has been circulated under the signatures of the Director of Informations, Government of U.P. Even assuming that the policy of 2002 is not yet available for implementation or is not applicable in the case of the petitioners, still the question remains as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get the subsidy in terms of clause 23.3 of the Film Policy 2001. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had shot hindi film Pani Re Pani Tera Rang Kaisa in the city of Lucknow wholly. Since the Film had been made at Lucknow in its entirety and it is Hindi Film, the petitioners are entitled to subsidy of 25% of the cost of production subject to maximum limit of Rs. 10 laos. It is also admitted to the respondents that the entire film aforesaid has been shot in Lucknow and that a certificate to that effect has been issued by the District Magistrate Lucknow. 7. 10 laos. It is also admitted to the respondents that the entire film aforesaid has been shot in Lucknow and that a certificate to that effect has been issued by the District Magistrate Lucknow. 7. The dispute arose because the State Government refused to make payment of 25% of the cost of production towards subsidy on the ground that the petitioner are entitled only for subsidy of 25% towards processing charges, in pursuance of which the petitioners were given payment of Rs. 2,87000 whereas their claim was Rs, 11 lacs and odd but looking into the aforesaid policy, the claim can be made up to Rs. 10 lacs. A latter dated 9.1.2004 gives the reason for not giving payment of the amount as claimed by the petitioners towards the cost of production which says that under the Rules only 25 % of the lab fee is payable. This lab fee is known as processing charges also. 8. We have gone through the Film Policy and we have inquired from the learned Counsel for the State Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey that under which provision of the Film Policy, this limited incentive is to be given to the petitioner and in case it is para 23.3 then the said provision does not say that the subsidy is to be given towards the processing charges alone Learned Counsel for the State could not indicate any such provision under the policy where the subsidy was restricted to the processing charges or lab fee whereas para 23,3 very specifically provides that it has to be against total cost of production. 9. The State has also filed a copy of the meeting held under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary Information of the Film Bandhu as SCA-1 wherein the case of the petitioners along with other films appears to have been considered for the purposes of grant of subsidy and it was resolved that in terms of para 23(3) of the Film Policy, the payment may be made only against the Film Processing lab charges and if there is discrepancy or repugnancy in the rules then the same may be corrected or clarified in the next meeting. 10. The aforesaid resolution itself says that the subsidy is to be paid as per the provisions para 23.3 of the Film Policy but also adds that it would only be restricted to the film processing charges. 10. The aforesaid resolution itself says that the subsidy is to be paid as per the provisions para 23.3 of the Film Policy but also adds that it would only be restricted to the film processing charges. It appears that the committee being Conscious that under the aforesaid provisions, the subsidy is to be given as against the total cost of the production of the film, therefore, the committee further resolved that if there is any discrepancy in the Rules i.e. in the Film Policy the same shall be corrected in the next meeting. We have been informed that no such meeting has yet taken place. 11. Thus, it is clear that under the scheme of the film policy 2001 the State Government had decided to extend the benefit of subsidy to the extent of 25% subject to maximum limit of Rs, 10 lacs towards the total cost of production of the film if it is totally and entirely shot in the State of U.P. This incentive was also circulated to such producers who intended to make films as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein so that they could avail the benefit of subsidy. 12. Petitioners’ representation made to the State Government for making Hindi film has been materialized. In this regard letter dated 27th May, 2003 copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, makes it clear that on the application of the petitioners dated 30.4.2003 the expert committee assessed the total cost of production to the tune of Rs. 47.29 lacs and observed that 25 % of which comes to Rs. 11.82 lacs can be given to the petitioners as maximum amount towards the subsidy. This letter is written by Secretary Film, Bandhu Uttar Pradesh. The subsidy amount is not restricted to Rs, 2, 87000 but since there is a limit of maximum 10 lacs in the Film Policy 2001, the petitioners are entitled for the balance amount. The aforesaid letter laid down certain conditions for getting advance of subsidy and there is no dispute that the petitioners had fulfilled all such conditions. 13. The petitioners have acted in accordance with the representation made to the State Government and had shot the entire Hindi Film in the State of Lucknow itself and thus are entitled to the amount of subsidy as declared in the Film Policy 2001. 13. The petitioners have acted in accordance with the representation made to the State Government and had shot the entire Hindi Film in the State of Lucknow itself and thus are entitled to the amount of subsidy as declared in the Film Policy 2001. The refusal on the part of the State Government in making the aforesaid payment on the ground that the policy allows subsidy of 25 % against the processing charges is fully erroneous and is based on non-existing condition which is not to be found in the Film Policy. 14. The relevant para 23.2 of the Film Policy 2001 which has been relied upon by the petitioners as well as the respondents, makes the petitioners entitled for Rs. 10 lacs in terms of the Film Policy 2001 towards ths total cost of the production which had been determined at Rs. 47.29 lacs by the Film Bandhu and it has also opined that the petitioners would be entitled to get Rs. 11.82 lacs but since this Court is of the view that in the case of Film Policy 2001 there is restriction of the amount of Rs. 10 lacs and since certain amount i.e. Rs. 2, 87000 has always been paid, we direct that the petitioners shall be paid the balance amount out of Rs. 10 lacs after adjusting the amount already paid. This payment has to be made in the maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is allowed. We accordingly quash the order dated 29.4.2004 and further issue a writ of mandamus to make payment of Rs. 10 lacs after adjusting the amount already paid within the time provided. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———