Judgment: Shantanu Kemkar, J. 1. Petitioner a Private Limited Company claims to be engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Sheet Metal Automobile components which in turn constitute raw material for the purpose of manufacture of motor vehicles had submitted an application before the Facilitation Corporation seeking its registration under the Madhya Pradesh Udyog Nivesh Samvardhan Sahayata Scheme, 2004 (for short "the Scheme"). The application was rejected by the Facilitation Corporation vide order dated 24-11-2009 (Annexure P-18) on the grounds that the petitioner's unit will be covered under the negative list dated 17-8-2006 (Annexure P-9) and the amended negative list dated 5-2-2008 (Annexure P-10) mentioning the units which are ineligible for their registration under the Scheme. While rejecting the petitioner's claim, the Facilitation Corporation recorded a finding that the petitioner is manufacturing products distinct from the products manufactured by the earlier unit. However, it held that since there are dues of the commercial tax on the erstwhile unit it will cover under the negative list disentitling it from registration under the Scheme. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24-11-2009 (Annexure P-18), the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent, which has been dismissed vide order dated 1-6-2010 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Shri P.M. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in exercise of its powers under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, the M.P. Financial Corporation had conducted an open auction of a unit viz. M/s. Saurabh Spinners Pvt. Ltd. in order to realise its dues against the loan advanced to the said unit. The petitioner company being interested to purchase the said unit which was put to auction had participated in the auction proceedings and had purchased the said unit M/s. Saurabh Spinners Pvt. Ltd. After its purchase the petitioner had started its own independent unit for manufacturing entirely a different product from the product of the erstwhile unit. He, therefore, argued that when the petitioner had nothing to do with the earlier unit, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer if there are any dues of Commercial Tax by treating it to be falling in the negative list of the earlier unit. He, therefore, argued that when the petitioner had nothing to do with the earlier unit, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer if there are any dues of Commercial Tax by treating it to be falling in the negative list of the earlier unit. He also argued that the question as to whether, for the recovery of dues of Commercial Tax Department from the earlier company M/s. Saurabh Spinners Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner's property could be put to auction by the M.P. Commerce and Employment Department or not, has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 17-2-2009 passed in W.P. No. 2107/2007 holding therein that the arrears of the commercial tax on the erstwhile unit could not be recovered from the petitioner. In the circumstances, according to him, the rejection of the petitioner's application for registration by raising the same issue of dues of erstwhile unit is wholly unjustified. He further argued that the petitioner was nowhere connected with any of the acts and activities of the earlier company, but had purchased the property in an open auction from the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation and has set up its entirely new unit manufacturing a distinct product, the impugned orders passed by the respondents treating the petitioner to be covered under the clauses of negative list are ex-facie illegal and are not sustainable. 3. Shri Vivek Patwa and Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders and argued that in view of the arrears of the tax on the unit, which the petitioner had purchased, the petitioner has rightly been denied the registration in the scheme in view of the provision contained in the negative lists. According to them, the petitioner having purchased the earlier unit it will not be a new unit. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and the record. 5. The State Government had framed an Industrial Promotion Policy, 2004 vide notification dated 21-6-2004, with an object to encourage industrialization, which in turn would generate employment in the State. A Scheme to that effect was framed giving various incentives to industries falling within the eligible ones. 5. The State Government had framed an Industrial Promotion Policy, 2004 vide notification dated 21-6-2004, with an object to encourage industrialization, which in turn would generate employment in the State. A Scheme to that effect was framed giving various incentives to industries falling within the eligible ones. It appears from the impugned orders and the reply of the respondents that the petitioner's application for registration for grant of benefits under the Scheme was rejected on the grounds (a) that it is not a new industry; and, (b) that there are dues of commercial tax on the earlier unit which has been purchased by the petitioner. 6. Before dealing with the questions involved in the petition, it would be appropriate to extract relevant entries of the list dated 17-8-2006 (P-9) and the list dated 5-2-2008 (Annexure P-10) relating to industries which are ineligible for registration under the Scheme. 7. We have carefully gone through both the entries extracted above describing industries which are ineligible for registration and for availing the benefits of the scheme. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that earlier unit was of the petitioner's itself which the petitioner has closed and established a new unit. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was any way connected with the earlier unit. From the averments it is clear that the petitioner had purchased the land and old building of the erstwhile company in an open auction conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation for recovery of the dues of the loan advanced by it to M/s. Saurabh Spinners Pvt. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that after purchasing the unit in question in an auction, the petitioner had raised additional construction and started manufacture of entirely different products from the products manufactured by the earlier unit. Thus, when the petitioner has nothing to do with the earlier unit, it neither can be said to be the old unit or can be said that it has established a new unit by closing the earlier unit as undisputedly it has no connection whatsoever with the earlier unit. 8. Thus, when the petitioner has nothing to do with the earlier unit, it neither can be said to be the old unit or can be said that it has established a new unit by closing the earlier unit as undisputedly it has no connection whatsoever with the earlier unit. 8. We also find that in the petitioner's case itself earlier this Court had given a clear finding in W.P. No. 2107/07 filed by the petitioner challenging the action of recovery of commercial tax dues of the earlier unit M/s. Saurabh Spinners Pvt. Ltd. from it. The relevant portion of the order dated 17-2-2009 passed in W.P. No. 2107/2007 reads thus: "For the reason given in Mahaveer’s case (supra) and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in SICOM Ltd.'s case, the present writ petition is also allowed and it is declared that the property purchased by the petitioner-Company from the Corporation cannot be put to auction by the Commercial Tax Department of the State Government for recovery of the arrears of commercial tax from the erstwhile owners." 9. In view of the aforesaid, in our considered view, the interpretation put forth by the Facilitation Corporation and in appeal by the Deputy Secretary, Commerce Industry and Employment Department holding the petitioner to be not a new unit and also holding that as there are dues of Commercial Tax against the erstwhile unit for which it is the petitioner who is liable to pay the same, in the circumstances, the petitioner would be covered under the clauses of the negative list is wholly misconceived. 10. On going through the scheme, we are of the view that the intention of the scheme is not to deny the benefits to the genuine new industrial undertakings. We also feel that the literal construction of the clause of negative list as has been tried to make by the respondents would result in defeating the very purpose of the scheme. The respondents in place of taking into consideration that the petitioner is a bona fide auction purchaser of the erstwhile unit and had nothing to do with the earlier unit or its dues have attempted to bring the petitioner in the negative list merely because the petitioner has established its unit by purchasing the earlier unit. The respondents in place of taking into consideration that the petitioner is a bona fide auction purchaser of the erstwhile unit and had nothing to do with the earlier unit or its dues have attempted to bring the petitioner in the negative list merely because the petitioner has established its unit by purchasing the earlier unit. Such an approach of the respondents is contrary to the spirit of the scheme and as such cannot be allowed to sustain. Thus, for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24-11-2009 (Annexure P-18) and 1-6-2010 (Annexure P-1) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to register the petitioner as new Industrial Unit for the purposes of the scheme so as to enable it to apply for grant of assistance in the nature of refund/reimbursement of Commercial Tax and Central Sales Tax deposited by it. A certificate to that effect be issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondents immediately. No orders as to the costs.