By The Court—These are four writ petitions, which raise common questions of fact and law and the common reliefs, and therefore, they are being decided together. 2. List has been revised. 3. None has appeared for the respondents, despite names of number of counsel having been shown in the cause list, nor there is any request of pass over. 4. Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, who was present on the first call of the case, is present on the second call also. 5. We have heard him and perused the record. 6. The petitioners are Cold storages, who have challenged the order of NABARD dated 14.11.05, though issued separately, requiring them to refund the amount of subsidy, which allegedly has been paid to them in excess to the amount to which they were entitled. The amounts differ in each writ petition, for example, in the case of Maheshwari Cold Storage, a total amount of Rs.19,03,200/- was paid towards subsidy, but now by the impugned order, they have been asked to refund an amount of Rs.7,45,700/-. 7. Before we proceed to discuss the merits of the claim of the parties, one factual situation, which is not disputed, it may be apt to mention here that the entire subsidy which was provided by the NABARD to all the four petitioners, was duly adjusted towards their bank loan and the bank has already given certificate of set-off, showing the satisfaction of the loan amount. It was after such settlement and utilization of subsidy that the present impugned orders have been issued requiring the petitiones to refund the amount mentioned in the said orders. 8. In short, the Union of India vide its scheme, as notified on 5.1.2000 introduced and implemented the Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction-expansion/modernization of cold storages and storages for horticulture produce. Under the said scheme, the cold storages were given the subsidy for the purpose of construction/expansion/modernization of cold storages and storages for horticulture produce. 9. The quantum of subsidy was provided therein and in sub-clause (v) of Clause (e), the main features of the schemes were detailed in the said notification (Annexure-1) making the list of eligible organizations, the project cost, eligible institutions for refinance from NABARD prescribing technical aspects and the quantum of subsidy. 10. 9. The quantum of subsidy was provided therein and in sub-clause (v) of Clause (e), the main features of the schemes were detailed in the said notification (Annexure-1) making the list of eligible organizations, the project cost, eligible institutions for refinance from NABARD prescribing technical aspects and the quantum of subsidy. 10. In sub-clause (v) of Clause (e) under the head Quantum of Subsidy, it was provided as under: “(v) Projects upto 5000 tonnes capacity would be preferred. The banks may sanction projects having cold storage capacity of more than 5000 tonnes also subject to the normal techno-financial appraisal but the maximum amount of subsidy under these projects would be calculated as per the guidelines at sub paragraph (iv) above and restricted to Rs.50 lakh and in the case of North-Eastern States, the limit of subsidy would be Rs.60 lakh.” 11. The petitioners also applied for the grant of subsidy, though they were having a capacity of more than 5000 tonnes. For getting the benefit of subsidy, the petitioners were required to furnish the details of the project and to comply with the directives issued and to fulfil the conditions precedent, as given in the scheme and as directed. 12. A Joint Monitoring Committee Report was furnished by the Monitoring Committee, wherein, in the case of Maheshwari Cold Storage, the total cost of the project was shown as Rs.76,360 lacs, out of which, the bank loan was Rs.40.00 lacs and the subsidy was Rs.19.090 lacs. This report was submitted by the Joint Monitoring Committee after making a visit on 5.8.03. So is the case with respect to other three petitioners also where the Joint Monitoring Committee has given the total cost of the project, which is more than 50 lacs, the amount of bank loan and, of course, the subsidy to which the petitioners were entitled. It was after the consideration of the Joint Monitoring Committee report and the fact that the petitioners were eligible and had fulfilled all the conditions, which are required, the subsidy as aforesaid was granted and released in favour of the petitioners. However, in the year 2004 i.e. on 30.11.2004, NABARD issued another Circular mentioning for the first time in Clause (iii) that subsidy in respect of cold storages under exdpansion/modernization shall be calculated on the basis of total capacity created subject to maximum of 5000 MT. 13. However, in the year 2004 i.e. on 30.11.2004, NABARD issued another Circular mentioning for the first time in Clause (iii) that subsidy in respect of cold storages under exdpansion/modernization shall be calculated on the basis of total capacity created subject to maximum of 5000 MT. 13. Clause (iii) aforesaid, reads as under: “(iii) subsidy in respect of cold storages under expansion/modernization Expansion proposals (a) In case subsidy has already been availed in respect of the existing unit under the CISS, the total entitlement of subsidy will be restricted to the capacity after expansion upto 5000 MT with application of norms regarding maximum of subsidy ceiling prescribed by NHB. Thus, subsidy after netting the amount received earlier will be released to the promoter. (b) In case subsidy has not been availed in respect of existing unit senctioned and constructed before the inception of the scheme, the promoter will be entitled to subsidy calculated on the basis of additional capacity created subject to maximum of 5000 MT. (c) In case subsidy has not been availed in respect of existing unit sanctioned and constructed after the inception of the scheme, the promoter will be entitled to subsidy calculated on the basis of total capacity created subject to maximum of 5000 MT. Modernization/renovation proposals The methodology of calculation of subsidy as laid down in our Circular No.280/ICD-14/2003 (Ref. No.NB. ICD. FPC/333/CS-4/2003-04) dated 24 December 2003 will apply for Modernization/Renovation proposals also.” 14. It was in pursuance of the aforesaid Circular of NABARD that the impugned recovery notices have been issued, as the project cost of all the petitioners exceeded Rs.50 lacs and they were given subsidy accordingly. 15. A counter affidavit has been filed by the National Horticulture Board, saying that non-refund of the said amount will amount to illegal enrichment of the petitioners at the cost of public money meant for promotional and developmental purposes. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for application of principle of estoppel against the respondents, as the petitioners did not change their position relying upon the representation made by or on behalf of the respondents in the nature of policy statement and that payment/assistance far in excess of entitlement under the scheme cannot be taken as part of the original representation in the nature of policy guidelines. 16. 16. In paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, a plea has been taken that the petitioners have not disclosed to the Court that the said policy statement also includes a provision to the effect of National Horticulture Board (NHB) being empowered to modify, add and delete any term/conditions without assigning any reason. 17. In paragraph-23 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that sanction and disbursal of money under the scheme were subject to National Horticulture Board perception of expediency of the instant project and maximum quantitative and pecuniary limits of 5000 MT and Rs.Fifty lacs respectively. 18. In paragraph-30 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that due to inadvertence on the part of concerned authorities in not observing the prescribed maximum capacity limit of 5000 MT, the petitioners have been disbursed with subsidy money far in excess of their entitlement. 19. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the petitioners did not conceal and material fact regarding the capacity and project cost nor violated any terms and conditions of the circular/policy issued by the NABARD. 20. The very fact that the respondents admit that subsidy was advanced due to inadvertence on the part of the concerned officers, goes to indicate that at least there was no fault on the part of the petitioners in seeking for the subsidy which was granted to them. 21. We laso take notice of the averment made in para-4 of the counter affidavit that the policy statement since included a provision of modifying, adding and deleting any terms/conditions without assigning any reason by the National Horticulture Board, therefore, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance, if the terms and conditions have been modified or so to say, right terms have bgeen applied by the NABARD and in pursuance thereof, they have been asked to refund the amount already paid and adjusted, but this has been done without affording any opportunity and without giving any reason. 22. Sub-clause (v) fo the policy makes it very clear that there was no embargo or so to say total prohibition in giving the benefit of subsidy to the projects which were of the value of more than 5000 MT. 23. 22. Sub-clause (v) fo the policy makes it very clear that there was no embargo or so to say total prohibition in giving the benefit of subsidy to the projects which were of the value of more than 5000 MT. 23. The only requirement was that the subsidy under these projects will be calculated as per the guidelines at sub paragraph (iv) above and restricted to Rs.50 lakh and in the case of North-Eastern States, the limit of subsidy would be Rs.60 lakh. 24. The petitioners have specifically pleaded in the writ petition that the total subsidy granted to the petitioners was below 25% of the total cost and that was much less Rs.50 lacs, which was permissible under the scheme. 25. In regard to the aforesaid pleadings, it has only been stated in para-22 of the counter affidavit that the contents of corresponding paragraph Nos.19 to 22 of the petition under reply are matter of record. This shows that the respondents did agree that the subsidy could have been granted for a project whose capacity was more than 5000 MT, but the limit of subsidy would be 50 lacs and not more than that. The petitioners have been given subsidy much below Rs.50 lacs. 26. It also flows from the counter affidavit that the Circular of 2004 dated 30.11.04 was a modification/clarification of the earlier notification/guidelines under which, the subsidy was given. 27. Right to modify, amend or delete any condition did vest with the National Horticulture Board, but whether this modification can be done retrospectively, cannot be substantiated by the respondents in their pleadings. 28. Once a benefit has been extended to the petitioners, that too under the terms of the scheme, which permits such grant of subsidy, subsequent modification or clarification would not entitle the respondents to recover the amount already paid or the benefit extended, which has resulted into adjustment of the loan and payment thereof, that too after a period of about two years. 29. There is one more aspect of the matter that the liability of refund of the amount has been fasterned upon the petitioners without affording any opportunity and without giving any reasons in the impugned order by simply saying that the excess amount paid towards subsidy be refunded by them. 30. 29. There is one more aspect of the matter that the liability of refund of the amount has been fasterned upon the petitioners without affording any opportunity and without giving any reasons in the impugned order by simply saying that the excess amount paid towards subsidy be refunded by them. 30. In our opinion, subsidy granted under the then existing terms of the policy/scheme cannot be asked to be refunded in part or in full because of the subsequent decision taken by the NABARD and the subsequent circular issued on 30.11.04. The subsidy to the petitioners was sanctioned in the year 2003 and was released immediately thereafter. 31. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders/notices for refund of the subsidy are laible to be quashed, which are hereby quashed. 32. All the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. (Petitions allowed) _____________