ORDER : This review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 29th April, 2011. It is mainly on the ground that without admission, concession of Additional Advocate General has been recorded. Thus, prayer is made to recall the judgment. 2. It is further stated that even if Additional Advocate General admitted certain facts then also it is not binding on the State Government. The concessions were totally untenable and otherwise, prejudicial to the interest of small entrepreneurs, hence, judgment deserves to be reviewed. 3. Learned Advocate General Mr. G. S. Bapna submits that Government was throughout contesting the matter, as is coming out from the fact that even interim order passed by this Court was challenged before the Division Bench though appeal may have been dismissed therein. It shows that review petitioners were seriously contesting the matter. Thus, there was no reason for Additional Advocate General to record his concession and otherwise, it is not legally sustainable. Other than the aforesaid, no issue has been raised for review of the judgment. 4. Learned counsel Mr. S. M. Mehta assisted by Mr. Ashish Sharma, appearing for the company, submitted that during the course of arguments, this Court asked learned Additional Advocate General that why decision for proportionate distribution of amount to the industries to the ratio of their loss has been changed. It was admitted that a company sustained huge loss will get meager amount whereas other companies sustained small loss and whose work was not suffered would get measure amount towards its loss. Learned Additional Advocate General could not justify the action of respondents, rather admitted that due to change of the decision, discrimination has been caused. The Hon’ble Court accordingly passed the order and now by review petition, they want to withdraw the aforesaid admission, which is not permissible. 5. Coming to admission of discrimination by Additional Advocate General, it is stated that admission of Additional Advocate General is not contrary to provision of law but on facts, thus such admission is binding on the review petitioner, who had authorized him to contest the matter on their behalf. Thus, review petition may accordingly be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Thus, review petition may accordingly be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is a case where writ petition was filed by the petitioner-company to claim proportionate amount towards damages sustained by them due to fire in Indian Oil Depot. Certain industries suffered severe loss where even few labourers died. Initial loss of all the industries was estimated to be 95.13 crores. The Indian Oil Corporation gave its willingness for ad hoc relief of Rs. 50 crores as good will gesture. The amount of Rs. 95.13 crores includes measure loss of few companies otherwise the total loss by other companies, firm or individual was not very high so as to even arrive on the figure of Rs. 50 crores. The respondents initially took a decision to distribute the amount in following manner :— “Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited. Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005 Date : 11-12-2009 Public Notice A Committee was constituted by the Management of RIICO vide office order No. IPI/PS/3527 dated 30-10-2009 & partial modification office order No.IPI/PS/3528 dated 30-12-2009 to assess the damages in industrial units, due to fire incident which occurred in OIC Oil Depot, Sitapura adjacent to RIICO Industrial area Sitapura on dated 29-10-2009. The Committee assessed the damages which occurred in the premises of all the allottees of RIICO Industrial area Sitapura including other supporting facilities (Commercial, Residential & Institutional etc.). Indian Oil Corporation Limited as a gesture of goodwill, released a sum of Rs. 50.00 crores to Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation for the Industries located in the Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur affected by the fire incident. It has been decided by the State Govt. that:— 1. A lump sum amount of Rs. 25000/- will be given (excluding vacant plots) to each unit as ad hoc relief. 2. Balance amount of Rs. 50 crores received from IOC will be distributed in proportion to the estimated loss of the units as ad hoc relief. 3. Ad hoc relief will not affect the individual insurance/third party insurance claim of the units. The constituted committee has estimated the damages in various units which is enclosed along with the report. 2. Balance amount of Rs. 50 crores received from IOC will be distributed in proportion to the estimated loss of the units as ad hoc relief. 3. Ad hoc relief will not affect the individual insurance/third party insurance claim of the units. The constituted committee has estimated the damages in various units which is enclosed along with the report. It is being informed to all the concerned that if they have any objection to the amount of damages estimated by the committee, they may submit their individual valuation of damages duly verified by the certified surveyor of Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA) on or before 21-12-2009 in the office of Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., CFC Building EPIP, Sitapura, Jaipur duly acknowledged. The individual valuation of damages duly carried out by the insurance companies or by registered surveyor from Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA) furnished will be considered as actual damages and same will be incorporated in the amount of total damages assessed by the Committee. Sd/- (Rajendra Bhanawat) Managing Director†8. The perusal of order quoted above reveals distribution of lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/- to each unit as ad hoc relief. Balance amount was to be distributed in proportion to the estimated loss of the units as an ad hoc relief. It was with a view to give ad hoc relief to units in proportion so that it may start their unit without delay. The respondents subsequently change the decision holding that ad hoc relief would not be beyond Rs. 1 crore. This Court while considering the matter, asked learned Additional Advocate General to justify their action regarding disproportionate distribution of ad hoc relief, inasmuch as, an industry sustained severe loss will get ad hoc relief of Rs. 1 crore whereas other industry sustained meager loss will also get ad hoc relief of Rs. 1 crore in disproportionate to the loss sustained. Learned Additional Advocate General then admitted that due to change in the decision, the distribution of ad hoc relief would be disproportionate. The aforesaid concession was made by the Additional Advocate General in all fairness and even if it is ignored, the order challenged in the writ petition itself shows a decision of the Government to make disproportionate distribution of ad hoc relief. The aforesaid concession was made by the Additional Advocate General in all fairness and even if it is ignored, the order challenged in the writ petition itself shows a decision of the Government to make disproportionate distribution of ad hoc relief. The aforesaid would be clear from the fact that petitioner company sustained maximum loss being neighbouring company to the Indian Oil Depot apart from few more industries but relief is kept limited to Rs. 1 crore. The total loss estimated for Rs. 95.13 crores contain major portion of the estimated loss of the petitioner company and to few other neighbouring industries. The Indian Oil Corporation gave ad hoc relief of Rs. 50 crores out of estimated loss of Rs. 95.13 crores. The estimated loss and initial decision to distribute ad hoc relief as a consequence thereof in proportion to loss contains huge loss sustained by the petitioner company. The review petitioner/s, however, took a decision later on not to make distribution of ad hoc reliefs to the units in proportionate to their loss but to limit it up to Rs. 1 crore. As a consequence of it, distribution becomes disproportionate and if that is so, the action of the review petitioner/s becomes discriminatory, thus violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India as unequals cannot be made equal. Learned Additional Advocate General accepted the aforesaid fairly. Once fact was agreed by the Additional Advocate General while arguing the matter, it cannot be withdrawn by a review petition. This is moreso when, review petition is not supported by the affidavit of Additional Advocate General. 9. Second issue is that as to whether admission of the learned Additional Advocate General is binding on the State Government. 10. I have considered the aforesaid aspect also. Before averting to the second argument, it would be gainful to refer that an admission of learned Advocate against the legal provisions cannot be binding on the party. The aforesaid is in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court holding that admission by the Advocate contrary to legal provisions cannot be read against the party. I respectfully agree to the aforesaid proposition of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but on facts of this case, it is not applicable. The admission of learned Additional Advocate General is not against the provisions of law but on the facts where decision is shown to be discriminatory in nature. I respectfully agree to the aforesaid proposition of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but on facts of this case, it is not applicable. The admission of learned Additional Advocate General is not against the provisions of law but on the facts where decision is shown to be discriminatory in nature. When the State Government took a decision to distribute amount of ad hoc relief in a disproportionate manner, an industry sustained loss of Rs. 30 crores will get only Rs. 1 crore whereas other industry sustained loss of Rs. 3 crores only will also get amount of Rs. 1 crore thereby so far as first company is concerned, ad hoc relief to it, would be 3.3 percent of estimated loss whereas other company would get relief to the extent of 33.33 percent or so. The admission of fact is binding. The illustration aforesaid clearly shows disproportionate distribution of ad hoc relief causing discrimination, thus found to be unsustainable and the judgment under review considered the aforesaid facts. It is settled law that unequals cannot be made equal. 11. Learned Advocate General Mr. G. S. Bapna had shown original record of the RIICO where decision was changed and stated that aforesaid was on representation of the industrial units and their association. 12. I find that change of decision at the instance of an association is not sustainable if it is causing discrimination by making unequals to be equals. It is settled law that making unequals to be equals violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instance case, every industry/unit and individual could get Rs. 25,000/- as ad hoc relief even if loss sustained by them was less than even Rs. 25,000/-. The other units sustained loss of more than Rs. 25,000/- were to be given ad hoc relief in proportion to the loss sustained. It is precisely for the reason that as against the estimated loss of Rs. 95.13 crores, the Indian Oil Corporation gave only Rs. 50 crores, thus the Government decided to distribute amount in proportion to the loss sustained as amount of relief was nearly half of the estimated loss. In the aforesaid background, by simple calculation, the units sustained loss should have been given around 45% of the amount of the estimated loss. The calculation of 45% is not rigid, but is nearby. It would be disproportionate with the limit of Rs. In the aforesaid background, by simple calculation, the units sustained loss should have been given around 45% of the amount of the estimated loss. The calculation of 45% is not rigid, but is nearby. It would be disproportionate with the limit of Rs. 1 crore as illustrated hereinabove where an industry/unit’s estimated loss is of Rs. 30 crores, would be getting 3.3% amount as interim relief whereas, an industry sustained loss of Rs. 3 crores is getting 33.33%. This cannot be said to be logical. It was done on the representation of the association but respondents have failed to give logic in passing order for disproportionate distribution. If the comparative status of the loss sustained by various industries, as given in the reply to the review petition/s is looked into, it shows that major loss sustained by 11 industries as per Annex.-C is of Rs. 56.54 crores. As against the aforeasaid, they would receive only Rs. 11 crores towards relief, which comes to nearly of 10% of the loss sustained by them. The second table enclosed along with reply to the review petition/s further shows comparative statement of estimated loss sustained by all the industries and the amount payable with the ceiling of Rs. 1 crore and without ceiling. The industry, namely, Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. sustained estimated loss of Rs. 27.48 crores and as per the proportionate distribution of the amount, it was to get Rs. 13.18 crores but allowed only Rs. 1 crore whereas an industry, namely, Tirupati Vinyl India Ltd. sustained loss of Rs. 35.83 lacs will get 32.17 lac after imposition of cap of Rs. 1 crore. It shows disproportionate distribution, as otherwise M/s. Tirupati Vinyl India Ltd. was to get Rs. 17.19 lacs. The illustration aforesaid shows that industry sustained heavy loss would be getting less amount towards relief and an industry sustained small loss, would be getting almost matching amount. The names of two industries, referred to above exist in the statement furnished along with additional affidavit submitted by the RIICO itself and exist at page No. 10 of the additional affidavit of Mr. D. K. Sharma. The name of Tirupati Vinyl India Ltd. exists at No. 5 whereas name of Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. exists at No. 6 in the document. The disproportionate distribution relief is shown by illustrating cases of two industries. D. K. Sharma. The name of Tirupati Vinyl India Ltd. exists at No. 5 whereas name of Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. exists at No. 6 in the document. The disproportionate distribution relief is shown by illustrating cases of two industries. The further scrutiny shows that an industry at item No. 8 in the statement submitted along with affidavit of Mr. D. K. Sharma, namely, Kushagra Publication (P) Ltd. sustained estimated loss of Rs. 5.99 lacs would be getting Rs. 5.38 lacs in view of disprorportionate distribution of loss and otherwise if the proportionate distribution of loss would have been allowed, it was to receive only Rs. 2.87 lacs. If the entire statement submitted by the RIICO along with affidavit of Mr. D. K. Sharma is looked into, it would be sufficient to admit disproportionate distribution of ad hoc relief and it was for the precise reasons that learned Additional Advocate General fairly accepted the factual position aforesaid, otherwise this Court would have given a detail judgment covering all the aspects. 13. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. S. M. Mehta assisted by Mr. Ashish Sharma submitted that even petitioner industry remained closed due to fire being neighbouring unit to the Indian Oil Depot and if loss is estimated due to closure of industry then it will come more than what has been estimated and other than 10 units, no unit sustained closure for a substantial period. 14. In view of discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the review petition/s, accordingly the same are dismissed. Petition dismissed.