Judgment :- Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith and heard finally, with consent of parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to respondents to issue Eligibility Certificate to them under the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "The PSI" or "The Scheme") as contained in Resolution dated 7.5.1993 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. 3. The petitioners in this group of petitions have contended that the communications dated 09.08.2005 and 10.02.2010 are arbitrary, invidiously discriminatory, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India and capriciously decline benefits which are legitimately available and due to them under the PSI. 4. The parties have agreed to treat Writ Petition No.5366 of 2010 by Shradha Polymats, a partnership firm, as the lead petition. Thus, the facts in said Writ Petition No.5366 of 2010 are referred to hereinafter and the decision therein would apply mutatis mutandis to other petitions in the present group. 5. M/s Indu Industries, a proprietary concern had undertaken industrial activity by setting up a iunit on V-30, MIDC area, Jalgaon which is considered to be industrially underdeveloped and/or developing area in Maharashtra State. Said industrial unit had been registered as SSI with Respondent No.2-the District Industrial Centre Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as "DIC") in 1999. 6. Said M/s Indu Industries with an intention to avail of benefits and incentives under the PSI had been taking steps as referred to and required thereunder. 7. By 31.12.1999, M/s Indu Industries had completed initial effective steps. An application in prescribed form was submitted to Respondent No. 2 seeking incentives and benefits of the PSI for the present unit. Accordingly, on 28.8.2000, Respondent No.2 had issued a Letter of Intent (hereinafter "LOI") declaring its intention to issue Eligibility Certificate to M/s Indu Industries. Several steps subsequently were taken for completion of project and commercial production had commenced well within the stipulated time limit. 8. Respondent No.1 under letter dated 30.12.2000 had clarified that for the industrial units submitting applications before 31.12.1999, cut-off date for completion of final effective steps would be 31.3.2002. 9. Change in constitution of industrial unit on V-30, MIDC Jalgaon to present petitioner-partnership firm and change in product for the industrial unit had been applied for and the same had been accepted, approved and recorded by Respondent No.2-the concerned authority. 9. Change in constitution of industrial unit on V-30, MIDC Jalgaon to present petitioner-partnership firm and change in product for the industrial unit had been applied for and the same had been accepted, approved and recorded by Respondent No.2-the concerned authority. DIC had approved and permitted the proposed changes in the constitution and the product on 14/17-9-2001 subject to the condition that project cost of Rs.84.20 lac would not be altered. Consequent amendment to SSI registration had also been effected by the concerned authority, referring to that, other conditions in original certificate would continue to be in force. 10. Commercial production from the unit had commenced on 4.3.2002 and accordingly, final effective steps had been completed. Having regard to the aforesaid the industrial unit had been claiming eligibility and entitlement to incentives under the PSI. Since then petitioner had been requesting Respondent No. 2 to issue Eligibility Certificate pursuant to the Scheme. The documentary evidence in respect of the same had been duly submitted to Respondent No.2 from time to time. 11. It appears that there were quite a few units which had been seeking Eligibility Certificates under similar circumstances, had been jointly pursing the issue. Respondent No. 2, under report dated 13.08.2003, purported to call for guidance from Development Commissioner (Industries), Mumbai, referring to change in the constitution and the product of the SSI units. Attention had been drawn by Respondent No. 2 to the fact that technological developments, technics and related matters entail change in the constitution and the product and also to that there is no contravention of procedural rules and the purpose continues to be industrial activity in developing and/or underdeveloped areas and that files of applicants would be processed on receipt of guidance. 12. The Development Commissioner (Industries), Mumbai, under letter dated 8.8.2005 appears to have opined negatively based on a decision by State Level Committee ("SLC" for short) in its meeting dated 13-05-2005. 13. It appears that the matter was taken to the Minister of Industries who had expressed inability to take up 'the issue' as a matter involving similar issue had been sub-judice at the instance of a similarly placed industrial unit. 14. The petitioners continued to persuade the concerned authorities. However, for a considerable period, the issue had been pending and directions were sought from this court for decision on the same. 15. 14. The petitioners continued to persuade the concerned authorities. However, for a considerable period, the issue had been pending and directions were sought from this court for decision on the same. 15. The petitioners had written to the Development Commissioner (Industries) on 25.3.2009, inter alia, pointing out that final effective steps have been completed and production had commenced pursuant to the Scheme. Permission to the concerned changes by Respondent No. 2 is in accordance with the Scheme. Application was submitted on 31.12.1999 on completion of initial effective steps and final effective steps have also been completed before 31.3.2002 as required. The unit is eligible, for incentives/benefits for investment upto 31.3.2002. It had further been pointed out that the State Level Committee (“SLC”) had approved one such case. 16. In the meanwhile, Writ Petition No.5565 of 2003 filed by M/s Gitesh Pipes Private Limited had been decided by this court on 30.8.2007 holding that the unit was eligible to benefits under the Scheme. Challenge to said decision through a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court, had not been successful. 17. The petitioners appear to have drawn attention of the concerned authorities to the decision rendered by this court in favour of M/s Gitesh Pipes Private Limited, submitting that their case is similar to that of M/s Gitesh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. However, a negative reply had been sent on 18.2.2010 by Respondent No. 2 to the petitioners, stating that the decision rendered by this court in aforesaid matter is confined to the petitioner before the court and as such, the demand of the petitioners herein is unacceptable. As such, the petitioners have approached this court in present group. 18. The case of Gitesh Pipes Private Limited was based on principle of promissory estoppel and had, inter alia, relied upon the cases of Tapti Oil Industries vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 321, Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2003) 3 SCC 716, and Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. 2007 AIR SCW 3752. Change in the constitution had also been involved in respect of said Gitesh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. for, earlier it was industrial unit named and styled as "M/s Shri Pulp and Paper". Ltd. vs. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O. 2007 AIR SCW 3752. Change in the constitution had also been involved in respect of said Gitesh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. for, earlier it was industrial unit named and styled as "M/s Shri Pulp and Paper". This court had held that doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' is applicable and in said case, application of the doctrine was not invited against legislative power of the State. The court has observed, there was sufficient representation by the respondents that effective steps could be completed by 31.3.2002 and based on that, the activity had been undertaken and continued and investments accordingly were made in the industrial unit. The court held that representations and commitments by the respondents are to be honoured and benefits ensuing therefrom to the petitioner cannot be held back and further held that the resolution providing cut-off date as 31.12.2001 would not be applicable. By following Hightech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. (supra), the respondents were directed to treat the case of the petitioner therein as having completed all the steps prior to 31.12.2001 and to extend benefits, including those of sales tax pursuant to the Scheme from 31.12.2001 onwards. Respondents do not dispute the aforesaid factual position. 19. Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply opposing the claims in the petitions. Respondent No. 2 has accepted that M/s Indu Industries had been a proprietary concern which had applied for incentives under the PSI for the unit set up on plot No.V-30 MIDC area, Jalgaon and had completed initial effective steps and had also obtained registration as SSI unit. It was thereafter the LOI had been issued. According to Respondent No. 2, change in the name and the constitution from proprietary to partnership firm and the finished product had been approved by the implementing agency on 17.9.2001 without commitment of incentives to the new entity, which had been formed after cut off date, contending the same to be 31.12.1999 for making valid application for incentives and since the final effective steps as stipulated under the PSI were taken after 31.3.2001, the incentives could not be availed of by the petitioners. It has been referred to that a collective writ petition had been filed before the High Court under which directions were given to Respondent No. 2 to decide the matters. It has been referred to that a collective writ petition had been filed before the High Court under which directions were given to Respondent No. 2 to decide the matters. Matters were discussed with the higher authorities and it was opined that the LOI is not a tradeable commodity having been granted for specific project and ownership. In the present case, since there has been total change in the ownership without any control and interest of the original applicant and the change in the product, the unit would not be eligible for sales tax incentives under the PSI. It has been contended that it amounts to trading of LOI and as such, incentives would not be made available to the unit. It has been further contended that as the initial effective steps had been completed after 31.3.2001, the unit is not entitled to incentives under the PSI. According to Respondent No2, changes in the constitution, ownership, name are permissible to eligible unit to which eligibility certificate had issued under the PSI and since eligibility of the petitioner has not been established, it has not been issued Eligibility Certificate. 20. We have seen Government Resolution dated 7-5-1993. Said Resolution containing Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 is an evolution of earlier schemes framed with an intention and object to achieve dispersal of industries outside Bombay-Thane-Pune belt in the light of experience gained in their implementation and of liberalized industrial policy of the Government of India in order to attract them to such areas by offering incentives in package to set up new/expand units and to augment growth and development of industries in underdeveloped and/or developing areas of the State. 21. The scheme is subject to the procedural rules contained in the Government Resolution dated 11.8.1980. 22. The scheme defines 'a new unit' to mean an industrial unit set up for the first time by private/cooperative/State public or joint sector in any taluka where there is no existing unit set up by said entity. 23. Under the scheme, effective steps comprise initial as well as final steps referred to in clause 3.3. 22. The scheme defines 'a new unit' to mean an industrial unit set up for the first time by private/cooperative/State public or joint sector in any taluka where there is no existing unit set up by said entity. 23. Under the scheme, effective steps comprise initial as well as final steps referred to in clause 3.3. It refers to the term “finished product” to mean item of manufacturing by eligible unit as per project approved by term lending agency and/or implementing agency and explains that change in finished product shall be allowed even during operative period of Eligibility Certificate with prior written permission of implementing agency and makes available incentives to changed finished product effective after necessary endorsements, however, with a rider that the eligible unit would not be entitled to additional incentives on addition of fixed capital investment for change in finished product. 24. The PSI provides for grant of eligibility certificate to an industrial unit by implementing agency which in the present petitions is Respondent No.2-(DIC). The implementing agency is enjoined with responsibility to issue eligibility certificate to suitable/eligible industrial unit for the purpose of incentives and other benefits. Eligibility certificate is issued by implementing agency on commencement of commercial production based on totality of documentary evidence submitted by eligible units and other information. Decision of the implementing agency in respect of the same, subject to conditions or directions of the State Government, is final and binding. The Commissioner of Sales Tax has to endorse the eligibility certificate specifying effective date of the eligibility for sales tax incentives. 25. Clause 3.11 is with regard to the period of eligibility and refers to that sales tax incentives would be available to eligible unit subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the Scheme. Clause 3.16 is with reference to sales tax liability. Clause 4 are general provisions and under clause 4.1 application for eligibility under the Scheme shall be made only after initial effective steps have been taken, supported by documents with regard to completion of the effective steps. The date of completion of final effective steps appears to have been extended from time to time upto 31.3.2002 (See Exh. C to writ petition) and requires application to be filed with the implementing agency. The date of completion of final effective steps appears to have been extended from time to time upto 31.3.2002 (See Exh. C to writ petition) and requires application to be filed with the implementing agency. Insofar as clause 4.2 is concerned, it refers to that incentives under the PSI cannot be claimed unless eligibility certificate is issued under the Scheme by the implementing agency. 26. According to the procedural rules, if an 'eligible unit' which has availed the benefit of scheme is closed within a period of seven years from the date of commencement of production then 'the unit shall' be liable to repay cumulative total amount of all the benefits drawn under the Scheme with an interest @ 12.5 per cent per annum or such other rate as may be specified. The rules also provide for repayment of benefits without interest for closure after seven years. Rules further provide for recovery of part of benefits in case of stoppage of normal production. 27. Clause 11 of the said procedural rules, inter alia deals with the change in constitution of eligible unit and even provides for post-facto sanction to the change. 28. Pursuant to Clause 11.22, prior written permission of the implementing agency is needed for causing change in the constitution during the operative period of agreement. In case of failure to follow stipulations under clause 11.22, clause 11.23 provides for ex-post-facto permission to change in constitution on fulfillment of certain conditions viz. information to implementing agency with documents and undertaking in the shape of agreement that the new entity adopts and accepts and would be liable to pay all the prior liabilities with regard to the incentives and shall abide by and fulfill all the requirements and conditions under the Scheme and that the 'eligible unit' shall continue to remain in normal production and pays on demand the amount referred to thereunder. Clause 11.24 empowers the implementing agency to proceed to recover cumulative total amount of benefits drawn under the Scheme in case of breach of the stipulations under clauses 11.22 and 11.23 and that the amounts, on failure by eligible unit to pay, would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue or by such other recourse as may be permissible under law. 29. 29. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the Industrial unit is located in underdeveloped / developing area and that the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 is applicable to industrial units in said area. It is also not in dispute that the LOI had been issued to the Industrial unit on V-30, MIDC area, Jalgaon by Respondent No. 2 pursuant to the Scheme. 30. It is apparent that respondent No. 2 has not entertained any doubt about the eligibility of the industrial unit for the incentives under the Scheme and about that while the name, constitution and the product of the concerned industrial unit undergo change, the industrial unit continues in the area to which the benefits of the Scheme are available. Respondent No.2, in fact, pursuant to its empowerment under the provisions of the Scheme has allowed and permitted concerned changes as those were not in breach of stipulations under the Scheme. 31. The letters dated 9.8.2005 and 18.2.2010 do not refuse grant of incentives for the reason that completion of effective steps had been after 31.3.2001 and is not the ground at all under the same. As such, the stand being taken in affidavit in reply, that effective steps were completed after 31.3.2001 would not be sustainable. In any case, it has to be appreciated that under letter dated 30.12.2000 (Exh. C to petition), the government has communicated to implementing agency that the date for completion of final effective steps had been extended upto 31.3.2002 for the units which had submitted applications till 31.12.1999 and had instructed to bring the same to the notice of the concerned. It has been further communicated under said letter, even for the units which have applied after 31.12.1999, said date would be 31.3.2002. This has been specifically averred in the writ petition and has not been controverted by the respondents. Under the circumstances, said ground taken in the affidavit in reply is without substance and cannot be accepted. In this respect, the observations made in Gitesh Pipes' case (supra) and citations relied on therein can be taken into consideration and would apply. 32. The object underlying the Scheme of 1993 and earlier schemes had all along continuously been dispersal of industrial units out of Mumbai-Thane-Pune belt, with a view to augment growth of industries in developing and underdeveloped area of the State. 32. The object underlying the Scheme of 1993 and earlier schemes had all along continuously been dispersal of industrial units out of Mumbai-Thane-Pune belt, with a view to augment growth of industries in developing and underdeveloped area of the State. The Scheme has been evolved with a view to encourage and attract industrial investments in such areas, offering incentives in package. The focus of the Scheme is on the industrial unit and is borne out from the provisions under the same. The Scheme appears to be alive to the situation/contingency of occurrence of change/alteration in name, management/constitution and final/finished product in respect of industrial unit. It would be required to be taken into account that in the event of death of proprietor or partner of the firm, industrial activity would not be allowed to be truncated and is not intended to be intercepted. It would not be in the interest of any one. The object and purpose is to have and continue with industrial activity in the underdeveloped/developing area. If such unforeseen circumstances and events are not taken care of, the whole purpose underlying the PSI would collapse and would be frustrated. It appears that such contingencies have been taken into account and have been taken care of by providing for and letting in such changes/alterations. Normally, such changes or alterations are resisted for protection of revenue. However, in present case, aforesaid changes would not cause any abatement of or affect interest of revenue. During its operation, the Scheme is accommodative to such changes. 33. It would thus emerge from the Scheme that the focus is on the 'industrial unit' and not on the 'entity'. 34. In the Scheme, there is no embargo, much less absolute one, on changes to name, constitution and product of an industrial unit. The Scheme, in fact, refers to the mechanism for changes and allows and permits changes in name, constitution and the product. 35. It can be seen that the Scheme does not restrict to any particular stage, only before or after which the changes in name, constitution and the product can be made. The Scheme offers incentives to the industrial unit in the area which are considered to be underdeveloped / developing areas. 35. It can be seen that the Scheme does not restrict to any particular stage, only before or after which the changes in name, constitution and the product can be made. The Scheme offers incentives to the industrial unit in the area which are considered to be underdeveloped / developing areas. As stated hereinabove, the focus is on the industrial unit and the eligibility is a matter of consideration for implementing agency and is empowered to issue eligibility certificate to concerned industrial unit. Said agency is enjoined with duty to monitor such units. 36. The Petitioners have placed reliance on Tapti Oil Industries vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra), inter alia, stressing that the principle of promissory estoppel is available even against executive action of the State. The initial and final effective steps having been taken incurring huge expenditure based on representation of benefits under the Scheme, the petitioners are entitled to the eligibility certificate pursuant to the Scheme and to enforce that right on the principle of promissory estoppels even if the Scheme is executive in nature. 37. The SLC and the Development Commissioner (Industries) Mumbai, appear to be oblivious of intention, purpose, object and focus of the Scheme and have been carried away by the considerations which are extraneous. As a matter of fact, the earlier entity had, with all sincerity soon after the LOI had been issued to the unit requested for changes which were duly allowed by Respondent No. 2. The authority which purported to decline the changes after those were allowed by respondent No.2, had been oblivious to that, the changes so allowed, did not digress from, diffuse or dilute the purpose and object of industrial activity in developing/underdeveloped areas. The Scheme does not prohibit permission to changes which have occurred after the LOI being issued to the industrial unit, nor it is a case of the respondents that with occurrence of change the object and focus of the Scheme is obfuscated. 38. Tradeability of the L0I is an extraneous issue unnecessarily being sought to be infused in the case of present petitioners which baulks the course of issuance of Eligibility Certificate to the eligible industrial units. It appears that the petitioners have followed required procedure and their request has, in fact, been accepted and permitted by Respondent No. 2 which is the final authority pursuant to provisions under the Scheme. 39. It appears that the petitioners have followed required procedure and their request has, in fact, been accepted and permitted by Respondent No. 2 which is the final authority pursuant to provisions under the Scheme. 39. Thus, the communication with reference to tradeability of LOI is absolutely misplaced. In any case, the same is not relevant for operation of the Scheme. The Scheme provides for safeguards to prevent the disturbance/damage to the object and/or focus under the Scheme. Thus, it would not be proper to deny, on a consideration which is irrelevant and extraneous to the operation of the PSI, the benefits legitimately available to the concerned unit under subsisting constitution other criteria being adhered to. 40. We, therefore, set aside the impugned communication dated 18.2.2010 issued by Respondent No. 2 and direct that the request of the petitioners for grant of benefits be processed without detaining it on the ground of changes to constitution or product, in accordance with the provisions of the Package Scheme of Incentives, 1993 and considered if they are otherwise eligible for such benefits. 41. Petition thus stands allowed. Rule made absolute, accordingly. No costs.