Judgment 1. Order Heard. 2. With the consent of the parties this writ application has been and is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ and/or direction to the respondent-State to grant subsidy on purchase of generator as was envisaged and promised under 1986 Industrial Policy of the State of Bihar. The same has been refused on the ground that generator was purchased long after expiry of the industrial policy i.e. in the year 1995 and as such the petitioner was not entitled to subsidy as claimed. The validity of the stand of the State is in question. 4. In 1986 the State Government came up with an industrial incentive policy, which inter alia, provided for an incentive to purchase electric generator for captive consumption of electricity, keeping in view of shortage of electricity and dependence of industry on industrial power. The petitioner asserts that being allured by the said policy he decided to set up the present modern flour mill. The unit was commissioned in 1986 and as such he was governed by the said policy which apply to all industrial units, which was coming into production between 1986-1991. It is not in dispute that he did not purchase the generator upto 1991 when the policy expired and was replaced by industrial incentive policy of the State Government of the year 1991. That policy did not have any such incentive. It is later in the year 1995 the petitioner decided to purchase a generator. Having purchased the same he applied for subsidy as contemplated under 1996 (Sic-1986?) Industrial Policy which was refused. 5. Having considered the facts as above, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot succeed and this writ petition must fail for the simple reason that to avail of industrial incentive as promised in the industrial policy 1986 the petitioner should have done some positive act in the policy period itself. If the petitioner could have shown that he had placed order for the generator or made payment for that in the policy period itself though the generator was delivered and installed later on, he would be entitled to subsidy. He did not show any action in this regard. The petitioner decided to buy the generator in 1995. By that time policy had expired. He did not show any action in this regard. The petitioner decided to buy the generator in 1995. By that time policy had expired. The policy does not contemplate or confer right on a person to do an act at later future day and claim benefit under the policy. The act has to be done or movement toward it has to be initiated within the policy also. Admittedly in the present case it was so not done. Therefore I am of the view the petitioner has no right muchless accrued right to enforce payment of subsidy. 6. I find no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed.