Judgment : 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows :– The petitioner submits that the Company installed a Wind Farm comprising of 2 new Wind Electronic Generators of 250 KW each at Varapatty Village in Coimbatore District. These were commissioned in G.O.Ms.No.809, dated 11.11.1989, by the Industries Department. The Government extended Special Capital Subsidy scheme for the units using Solar Energy Equipments and also to all renewable energy devices mentioned in the said G.O. in all the areas not covered by the State or Central Subsidy. The said G.O. stated that the intention of the Government in issuing the above G.O. was to promote and for setting up of Industries involved in the development of non-conventional energies and accordingly, the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Energy Development Agency had suggested that the scheme may be extended to the Renewal Energy Devices mentioned in the G.O. in all the areas not covered by the State or Central Capital Subsidy in addition to the items mentioned in para-1 of the G.O. The Government stated that it had conceded to the suggestion and it accordingly directed that the Capital Subsidy Scheme be extended to the units using Solar Energy Equipments and also to the Renewable Energy Devices in all the areas not covered by the State or Central Capital Subsidy Scheme. 2. The G.O. was issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department. By a subsequent clarification issued by the Government of Tamilnadu Industries Department, it was clarified that the Special Capital Subsidy ordered in the G.O. is applicable to all the industries which manufacture any of the Solar / Renewable Energy Equipments mentioned in the Government orders and the Special Capital Subsidy, which is available to the industry using the device / equipments as per the Government Orders referred to therein. It is further clarified that the rate of subsidy for the Solar / Renewable Energy Equipments manufacturing units is 10% on the value of the fixed assets to be created as in the case of Special Capital Subsidy for selected category of Industries and the rate of subsidy for the industries which use solar / renewable electricity energy equipments would be 10% of the cost of the Solar / Renewable Equipments. 3. 3. The Notification dated 11.11.1989, detailed the various renewable Energy devices and one of the Energy Devices mentioned therein is Wind Mills and any specially designed devices which run on wind mills. The Wind Mills operated by the petitioner was thus specially covered by the Notification dated 11.11.1989. Since the petitioner was eligible for subsidy under the above said Notification, the petitioner submitted an application to the SIPCOT on the 21st December, 1996 for the grant of subsidy. By its letter dated 04.02.1997, SIPCOT informed the petitioner that as the petitioner's firm is a Small Scale Industrial Unit, it has to make the application to the Director of Industries and Commerce to secure Wind Mill Subsidy. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application to the Director of Industries and Commerce on 25th March, 1997, furnishing all the relevant particulars and all documents and records which were required to accompany the application. The Director of Industries and Commerce directed the petitioner to approach the Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, Chennai, for incorporation of wind mill activity in the SSI Certificate, allotted to the petitioner and thereafter filed the application with the said Joint Director for availing wind mill subsidy. This intimation was issued by the Director of Industries and Commerce on the 15th October 1997. Immediately, on receipt of the said letter, from the Director of Industries and Commerce, the petitioner firm, by its letter dated 23.10.1997, submitted its application to the Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce for incorporating the wind mill activity in their SSI Certificate. 4. By letter dated 21st November 1997, the Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce directed the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Coimbatore to inspect the petitioner's wind mill and furnish the details and the information of the said wind mill to the Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce. After making all the enquiries and after having been satisfied to have been completed all the formalities, the Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce issued a SSI Certificate dated 16.04.1998, wherein he incorporated wind mill as part of the petitioner's activity. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the above said authorities as herein before stated, the petitioner submitted an application on the 13th July 1998, together with all the relevant enclosures and documents and sought early sanction of the wind mill subsidy to which the petitioner is eligible. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the above said authorities as herein before stated, the petitioner submitted an application on the 13th July 1998, together with all the relevant enclosures and documents and sought early sanction of the wind mill subsidy to which the petitioner is eligible. Though the application was submitted as early as 30th July 1998, the petitioner did not receive any communication on sanction of the subsidy. 5. Thereupon, the petitioner repeatedly reminded the Regional Joint Director of Industries and Commerce, without any success. Thereafter, on 31st July, 1999, the petitioner had again made a representation to the Commissioner, Directorate of Industries and Commerce stating the entire facts submitted that the petitioner's request for the grant of wind mill subsidy had not been accepted and therefore subsidy was granted to the petitioner. Though, the petitioner was entitled to the said subsidy, even to the said representation, the petitioner did not receive any response and consequently the petitioner was constrained to make further repeated representation before the 1st respondent. Finally on the 30th April 2002, the petitioner had received a letter dated 23.04.2002 from the 1st respondent, referring to the petitioner's application for the grant of subsidy, stating that the subsidy is eligible for manufacturing activities only and since the petitioner's unit has been registered with the Industries Department as a permanent SSBE category and the activities are only servicing activity, as such the petitioner's unit is not eligible for the subsidy and rejected the petitioner's application. Hence, the above writ petition has been filed for relief. 6. The respondents filed counter statement and resisted the above writ petition. The respondents stated that as per the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.956, Industries dated 16.08.1984, and G.O.Ms.No.809, Industries dated 11.11.1989, the Special Capital Subsidy scheme was extended to Industrial units using Solar Energy Equipments and also to all the renewable energy devices including Wind Mills in all the areas not covered by the State or Central Capital Subsidy at the rate of 10% of the value of the cost of the Solar / Renewable equipments. Since the unit M/s. Khivraj Motors, Chennai was registered only as a Small Scale Service and Business (Industry Related) Enterprises (SSSBE) for the line of activity of Repairing and servicing of two wheelers, three wheelers and four wheelers automobiles only and not as a Small Scale Industrial (SSI) unit, as per G.O.Ms.No.406, Industries dated 17.04.1990 (SSSBE) units are not eligible for subsidy. Hence, the Wind Mill installed by the petitioner unit, which is a SSSBE unit does not qualify for the subsidy eligible to SSI Industrial Units only, as per the G.O. mentioned above. 7. The respondent further stated that in the Industries Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce letter R.C.No.38667/LC3/99 dated 08.06.2001, it was clarified that in accordance with the orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.406, Industries, 17.04.1990 wind mill subsidy is available only for manufacturing activities and SSSBE units are not eligible for subsidy. Since the unit M/s. Khivraj Motors Limited had been registered under Small Scale Service and Business (Industry Related) Enterprises for the line of activity of Repairing and Servicing of two wheelers, three wheelers and four wheelers automobiles only. It is not eligible for subsidy and hence the Unit M/s. Khivraj Motors Limited was not considered eligible for wind mill subsidy. Accordingly the subsidy application filed by M/s. Khivraj Motors Limited, Chennai was rejected by the Regional Joint Director in his letter dated 23.04.2002. It is further submitted that the petitioner was registered not as a Small Scale Industrial (SSI) unit, but only as a Small Scale Service and Business (Industry Related) Enterprises (SSSBE) for the line of activity of Repairing and Servicing of two wheelers, three wheelers and four wheelers automobiles only. As per G.O.Ms.No.406, Industries dated 17.04.1990, only registered Small Scale Industrial Units are eligible to avail the subsidy and other incentives and Small Scale Service and Business Enterprises units are not eligible for subsidy. The Unit's subsidy application was rejected on the grounds that only registered Small Scale Industrial Units are alone eligible to avail the subsidy and other incentives as per G.O.Ms.No.406. 8. The respondent further submits that as per the G.O.Ms.No.956, Industries dated 16.08.1984 and G.O.Ms.No.809, Industries dated 11.11.1989 only Industrial Units using Solar Energy Equipments and all the renewable devices including Wind Mills are eligible for the subsidy of 10% of the value of the cost of the equipments. 8. The respondent further submits that as per the G.O.Ms.No.956, Industries dated 16.08.1984 and G.O.Ms.No.809, Industries dated 11.11.1989 only Industrial Units using Solar Energy Equipments and all the renewable devices including Wind Mills are eligible for the subsidy of 10% of the value of the cost of the equipments. Wind Mill as such is not considered as an Industrial activity and it does not come under the purview of Small Scale Industrial Registration. Only an endorsement made wherever necessary in the SSI certificate issued to the Unit to the effect that the unit has set up a Wind Mill in a particular district, as a measure of precaution that registered SSI units, who are running their production unit in one District and installed the Wind Electric Generator in another district do not claim the subsidy on Wind Mill on both ends. It is further submitted that the activities of Repairing and Servicing two wheelers, three wheelers and four wheelers automobiles are coming only under SSSBE category as per circular No.2(3)/91-SSI Bd.Ds, dated 30.09.1991 of Development Commissioner, Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Government of India, New Delhi-11, do not come under the SSI category. Hence, they are not eligible for subsidy as per G.O.Ms.No.406, Industries dated 17.04.1990. Hence, the respondents have prayed to dismiss the above writ petition. 9. The highly competent counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's firm is registered as a SSI unit and on the terms of G.O. Issued by the Government of Tamilnadu. As such, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of subsidy. The said G.O.Ms.No.406, dated 17.04.1990, does not justify the rejection of the petitioner's claim for subsidy. The petitioner's unit is a Wind Mill Industry. The learned counsel further contended that the concept of manufacturing and non-manufacturing activity is dealt with only in medium and large scale industries, while issuing licences / DGTD registration and not in SSI sector. In view of this, the Government had accepted the position that state capital subsidy claim is available to even non-manufacturing S.S. Industry. The petitioner firm had been registered as Industry and consequently the new distinction of service industry brought in by the respondents for denying the benefit of capital subsidy to the petitioner is totally unjustified. Initially, the petitioner unit has been registered as a Small Scale Industry. Consequently, it cannot be reclassified as a small services establishment. The petitioner firm had been registered as Industry and consequently the new distinction of service industry brought in by the respondents for denying the benefit of capital subsidy to the petitioner is totally unjustified. Initially, the petitioner unit has been registered as a Small Scale Industry. Consequently, it cannot be reclassified as a small services establishment. The petitioner is also maintaining a workshop and it has a number of machines. 10. The learned counsel further submits that the said Wind Mill firm has been registered as a Small Scale Industry and on that basis alone, it would be eligible for state capital subsidy in terms of notification dated 11.11.1989. It is not open to the respondents to introduce additional conditions and whittle down the said notification arbitrarily. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to allow the above writ petition. 11. The very competent Additional Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner's unit is classified as small scale service and business enterprises and as such the unit is not covered as per G.O.Ms.No.406, Industries dated 17.04.1990. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any subsidy from the respondents. Further, the Government of India, New Delhi, Ministry of Small Scale Industries had issued a circular No.2(3)/91-SSI Bd.Ds., dated 30.09.1991 wherein relief of subsidy is extended only for industrial units but the petitioner unit is a repairing and servicing unit of automobiles. The respondent has given crystal clear reply to the petitioner and rejected his application as per G.O.Ms.No.406. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the respondents impugned order, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at for rejecting subsidy. This Court is of the view that the respondents letter clearly reveals that as per G.O.Ms.No.406, Industries dated 17.04.1990, subsidy is eligible for manufacturing units only, but the petitioner's unit has been registered in the respondent department as permanent small scale service business enterprises and the units are only doing servicing activities. The writ petitioner stated that in the said unit, machines were erected in the workshop. The writ petitioner stated that in the said unit, machines were erected in the workshop. The said machines have not been used for manufacturing activities and have been used only for repairing and servicing of two wheelers, three wheelers and four wheelers automobiles. As such, these units could not be considered as manufacturing units, as there is no production of any materials for use. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioner's unit could only be considered as a service unit and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any subsidy from the respondents. As such, the contentions made in the writ for grant of subsidy does not have enough force to allow it. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above writ. 13. In the result, the above writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in letter No.K.D.I.S.9950/A3/98, on the file of the 1st respondent, dated 23.04.2002, is confirmed. No costs.