Judgment : R. Banumathi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.2012 rendered in W.P(C) No.6727/2010, in and by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to determine the amount of various subsidies, viz Capital Investment Incentive, Captive Power Generating Subsidy, Interest Subsidy, Stamp Duty and Registration Subsidy, Feasibility Study Project Report Cost Reimbursement Subsidy, Pollution Control Equipments Subsidy and make payment to the writ petitioner-respondent. 2. The brief facts, which led to filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal, are as under:- After creation of the State of Jharkhand on 15th November, 2000, to optimally utilize the available resources of the State and to accelerate the industrial development of the State, an Industrial Policy was formulated to achieve the expected industrial growth and Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 was notified on 25.8.2001 (Annexure – 2) with various schemes and incentives to the units defined under the Policy. As per clause 29.11 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, special package for Mega Industrial Units was formulated and notified, vide memo no.1885 dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure – 3). As per the notification containing special package for Mega Units, the Units were categorized in three different categories, viz (i) New Industrial Units in which the capital investment has been made or is being made for more than Rs.50 crores, (ii) existing Industrial Units and (iii) loss making existing Units. The respondent Unit is in the first category, i.e. New Industrial Unit having invested more than Rs.50 crores. As per the Special Package for Mega Industrial Unit, the capital investment subsidy for the new industrial units are as under:- “New Industrial Units The industrial units falling in this category shall be granted Capital Investment Subsidy which shall be released in the following two manners; (I) The industrial units shall be granted the Capital Investment Subsidy within 3 months of the unit coming into commercial production as per the categorization of blocks in the State: Category Percentage Maximum Amount A 5 4 crores B 10 7 crores C 15 10 crores (II) After establishment of the unit every years the State will be getting the commercial taxes and other revenues upon the sales of the products of such industrial unit. Upto the limit of the amount equivalent to 75% of the commercial taxes received in each financial year, a capital investment subsidy shall be given to a industrial unit in the next financial year. This incentive shall be given to the unit from the date of the unit coming into commercial production as per the classification of blocks for the following mentioned period; Category Period (in years) A 7 B 8 C 9 The date of commercial production falling in the concerned financial year will be treated to be the first year for the purpose of aforesaid incentive and the Capital Investment Subsidy shall be given to the unit against that in the next financial year. The maximum limit of Capital Investment Subsidy to any unit in the aforesaid two manners in this Category shall be 75% of the capital investment made by the industrial unit as immovable capital investment upto the date of commercial production. As per the Special Package other subsidies are as under:- (II) Other subsidy: Over and above the Capital Investment Subsidy about which discussions have been made above, as per the Industrial Policy, 2001, Interest Subsidy (29.5), Stamp Duty and Registration Duty reimbursement (29.6) and Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy (29.9) shall be permissible after negotiations.” 3. The respondent Unit Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. executed a MoU with the State Government (Annexure – 1) on 18.7.2005 with the proposal to make Capital Investment of Rs.410 crores in the first phase and Rs.95 crores in the second phase. The present dispute is mainly with respect to the incentives/subsidies relating to first phase-claim of the respondent Unit. 4. The respondent started its production in its DRI (Sponge Iron Plant) with effect from 05.05.2006, the Power Plant and its Steel Melting Shop started production from 17.07.2007. A certificate to that effect was issued by the Director, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand and the same was communicated to the respondent vide memo No. 1801 dated 09.08.2008. The respondent submitted application for Capital Investment Subsidy on 16.09.2008 as per Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rule, 2005 but the same was not decided. Under the circumstances, the writ application was filed seeking for direction for grant of incentives, for which, the respondent-Company was entitled under the Mega Industrial Policy and the Rules made thereunder. The respondent submitted application for Capital Investment Subsidy on 16.09.2008 as per Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rule, 2005 but the same was not decided. Under the circumstances, the writ application was filed seeking for direction for grant of incentives, for which, the respondent-Company was entitled under the Mega Industrial Policy and the Rules made thereunder. Pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 18.02.2011, the Industries Department passed a reasoned order vide memo No. 512 dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure-7) rejecting the claim of the respondent for different heads of subsidies. The capital investment incentive was rejected on the ground that the Unit has not submitted the application for capital investment incentive within the mandatory time period of six months. In so far as other subsidies namely Interest Subsidy, Pollution Control Equipment, Stamp Duty, Registration Fees, Captive Energy Subsidy, Project Repair Reimbursement are concerned, they were rejected on the ground that the Unit has not done any negotiation in respect of those subsidies before the commencement of the project. The writ petition, W.P(C) No.6727/2010, was then amended to challenge the order contained in memo no.512 dated 1.3.2011. 5. The stand of the State Government is that as against its promise of investing Rs.410 crores in the first phase, the respondent Unit invested only Rs.122.573 crores and that the respondent had not honoured its commitment under the Mou. According to the appellant, the respondent Unit is not entitled to capital investment subsidy since it has not applied for the same within the mandatory period of six months of commercial production. In respect of other incentives, it was averred that the same is not admissible to any Mega Industrial Unit without having negotiation prior to commencement of the Project and that there was no such negotiation by the respondent Unit and therefore, the respondent Unit is not entitled to other subsidies. 6. In respect of other incentives, it was averred that the same is not admissible to any Mega Industrial Unit without having negotiation prior to commencement of the Project and that there was no such negotiation by the respondent Unit and therefore, the respondent Unit is not entitled to other subsidies. 6. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge held that for making an application for grant of Capital Investment Subsidy furnishing a certificate from the Director of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, regarding the date of commercial production is necessary and in the case of the petitioner, a certificate has been granted by the Director of Industries on 09.08.2008 whereas the application for Capital Investment Incentive Subsidy was filed on 16.09.2008, which is well within six months from the date of production and the rejection of the respondent’s claim for Capital Investment Subsidy is unjustified and arbitrary. In so far as other subsidies are concerned, the learned Single Judge held that even though special package for Mega unit formulated by the Government postulates that the aforesaid subsidy would be admissible only on negotiation but it can never be meant to be pre-negotiation rather only after setting up unit, one can claim subsidy admissible to the new unit. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr.Ajit Kumar, appearing for the appellant-State, contended that the respondent Unit is not entitled to capital investment incentive since the Industry has not fulfilled its MoU obligation of quantum of investment. It was submitted that as per the special package for Mega Industrial Units and the Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules 2005, application claiming capital investment subsidy has not been submitted within the mandatory period of six months and the learned Single Judge did not keep in view that fact and therefore, the authorities rightly rejected the respondent’s claim for capital investment incentive and the learned Single Judge ought not to have issued direction for payment of capital investment subsidy. 8. Mr.Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Unit submitted that for grant of capital investment subsidy, as per Rule 5 of the Mega Project Incentive Rules 2005, application can be made only along with the certificate issued by the Director of Industries certifying the date of commencement of commercial production. 8. Mr.Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Unit submitted that for grant of capital investment subsidy, as per Rule 5 of the Mega Project Incentive Rules 2005, application can be made only along with the certificate issued by the Director of Industries certifying the date of commencement of commercial production. It was contended that respondent started Sponge Iron Plant on 5.5.2006 and Steel Melting Shop started production on 17.7.2007 and the application for issuance of certificate was made in time before the Director of Industries and the Director of Industries granted the certificate only on 9.8.2008 and the respondent Unit made application immediately thereafter on 16.9.2008 and therefore, the application for grant of capital investment subsidy was not belated and while so, the concerned authorities arbitrarily rejected the claim of the respondent Unit on the ground that the application for capital investment subsidy was not made within the stipulated period of six months and the learned Single Judge rightly issued direction to determine the capital investment subsidy payable to the respondent and pay the same. 9. In the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, clause 29.11, it has been mentioned that the Government of Jharkhand shall formulate Special packages for the new projects with an investment of more than Rs.50 crores on case to case basis through direct negotiation. In order to ensure uniformity in providing various incentives, the State of Jharkhand notified the special package for Mega Industrial Units, vide memo no.1885 dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure – 3) and also framed special incentive rules for Mega Projects known as Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules, 2005. Rule 5, which deals with methodology/procedure for capital investment subsidy, reads as under:- “5. In order to ensure uniformity in providing various incentives, the State of Jharkhand notified the special package for Mega Industrial Units, vide memo no.1885 dated 10.6.2003 (Annexure – 3) and also framed special incentive rules for Mega Projects known as Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules, 2005. Rule 5, which deals with methodology/procedure for capital investment subsidy, reads as under:- “5. METHODOLOGY/PROCURE FOR CAPTIAL INVESTMENT SUBSIDY An application for claiming Capital Investment Subsidy under the said rules should be made in the application form prescribed for the purpose as specified in Schedule – “A” along with the prescribed enclosures within six months from the date of commencement of commercial production or the Incentive Rules coming into force, whichever is later, to the Director of Industries.” As per Rule 6, the applications so received for capital investment subsidy from Mega Projects shall be placed before the Screening Committee comprising of the Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary, Industries Secretary and the Director of Industries and who shall examine the applications received and forward its recommendation to the State Government through Chief Secretary for final approval/sanction of Capital Investment Subsidy. 10. Rule 2.10 of the Rules, 2005, which deals with the date of production, reads as under:- “DATE OF PRODUCTION It refers to the date of commercial production of such new unit. In respect of expansion/diversification/modernization, it refers to commercial output from such expansion/diversification/modernization of the unit as specified in this rule. Commercial production or Commercial output means the product is ready for sale to the customer(s). Director of Industries, Govt. of Jharkhand, after verification shall issue a certificate to this effect. In case of dispute, the decision of Principal Secretary/Secretary-Industries/Govt. of Jharkhand shall be final.” 11. The respondent Unit started its commercial production in the Sponge Iron Plant on 5.5.2006 and its Steel Melting Shop started commercial production on 17.7.2007. As per Rule 5, the application has to be made in the prescribed form along with enclosures containing the date of commencement of commercial production certified by the Director of Industries. The respondent Unit applied for issuance of certificate on 18.7.2006 (Sponge Iron Plant) and 10.10.2007 (Steel Melting Shop) to the Director of Industries. The Director of Industries issued certificate only on 9.8.2008 and thereafter the respondent Unit made an application on 16.9.2008 for grant of capital investment subsidy. The respondent Unit applied for issuance of certificate on 18.7.2006 (Sponge Iron Plant) and 10.10.2007 (Steel Melting Shop) to the Director of Industries. The Director of Industries issued certificate only on 9.8.2008 and thereafter the respondent Unit made an application on 16.9.2008 for grant of capital investment subsidy. The said application was rejected on the ground that the application for capital investment subsidy was not filed within the mandatory time limit of six months. 12. In I.A No.1612/2011 filed by the respondent-Unit in the writ application, it is clearly stated that for obtaining the certificate the application was made as early as on 18.7.2006 and Sponge Melting Shop in October, 2007 and repeated follow up were made for the same and inspite of such efforts, the certificate was issued by the Director of Industries on 9.8.2008. According to respondent-Unit, Schedule “A”, which forms the part of the application for grant of capital investments subsidy, prescribes the enclosures to be filed along with the application and check list for scrutiny of the application for capital investment subsidy at serial no.7 mentions that the date of commencement of commercial production as per the certificate issued by the Director of Industries has to be furnished and unless and until the certificate of the date of commencement of commercial production issued by the Director of Industries is furnished, the application for grant of capital investment subsidy would not be accepted and processed. After the Director of Industries issued the certificate on 9.8.2008 certifying the date of commencement of commercial production, the respondent Unit submitted its application for capital investment subsidy on 16.9.2008, which was well within the period of six months from the date of issuance of the certificate by the Director of Industries. 13. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent-Unit has not started its commercial production on 17.7.2007. 13. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent-Unit has not started its commercial production on 17.7.2007. The respondent Unit applied before the Director of Industries for issuance of the certificate well within time and also applied for grant of capital investment subsidy on 16.9.2008 within the short time after the certificate was issued by the Director of Industries on 9.8.2008, the application for capital investment subsidy could not be submitted within six months from the date of actual commercial production on 17.7.2007 only because of the delay in issuance of the certificate by the Director of Industries, therefore, the authorities were not right in rejecting the claim of the respondent Unit for grant of capital investment subsidy. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the application for capital investment subsidy was filed on 16.9.2008, which was well within the period of six months from the date of commencement of commercial production and was right in directing the appellant-State to determine the amount of the claim of the respondent Unit for capital investment subsidy/incentive. It was also submitted that subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent Unit filed Contempt Petition being Cont.(C) Case No.1082/2012 and capital investment subsidy of Rs.7 crores was also paid to the respondent Unit. 14. Regarding other subsidies like Interest Subsidy etc., learned Additional Advocate General submitted that other commercial taxes subsidy upto the defined limit subsidies for Stamp Duty and Registration Reimbursement and Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy are admissible only after negotiation on case to case basis. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondent Unit did not enter into any kind of negotiation as required under the Mega Industrial Unit Policy and thus, the respondent Unit is not entitled to grant of subsidies – Interest Subsidy and other subsidies. It was further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that other subsidies as prayed for like Captive Power Generating subsidy and Feasibility Study Project report cost, reimbursement subsidy are not admissible and payable to the respondent Unit which is a Mega Unit defined under the provisions of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 read with the relevant Rules and Special Package for Mega Industries. 15. Mr. 15. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent Unit, submitted that the appellant State has misconstrued the scope of Special Package under clause 29.11 as well as the package for Mega Industrial Units. It is further submitted that the special package made thereunder do not in any manner take away the benefits which are admissible under the Policy merely on the ground that there was no negotiation. It was submitted that it is not possible to construe clause 29.11 and the package made thereunder requiring prior negotiation and the learned Single Judge rightly held that special package can never be meant to be pre-negotiation rather only after setting up of the Unit, one can claim subsidy admissible to the new Unit and learned Single Judge rightly directed to determine other subsidies payable to the respondent Unit. 16. Under clause 29.11 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, a provision has been made for grant of special package to the Mega Industrial Units under this Mega Zone. So far as Mega Units investing more than Rs.50 crores are concerned, apart from capital investment subsidy, other subsidies like Interest Subsidy, Stamp Duty, Registration Duty reimbursement and Pollution Control Equipments Subsidy shall be admissible after negotiation. Special package for Mega Units deals with other subsidies, which is as under:- “(II) Other subsidy: Over and above the Capital Investment Subsidy about which discussions have been made above, as per the Industrial Policy, 2001, Interest Subsidy (29.5), Stamp Duty and Registration Duty reimbursement (29.6) and Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy (29.9) shall be permissible after negotiations.” 17. The respondent Unit being a Mega Unit is governed by Special Package for Mega Industrial Units – 2003 and Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules, 2005. The Special Package for Mega Industrial Units being the policy decision of the State, granting various subsidies is to be strictly construed. The Special Package for Mega Industrial Units clearly stipulates that subsidies like Interest Subsidy, Stamp Duty and Registration Duty Reimbursement and Pollution Control Equipments Subsidy shall be admissible after negotiation. While rejecting the claim of the respondent Unit in respect of other subsidies, it was observed that the respondent is not entitled to other subsidies since the respondent Unit has not done negotiation in respect of those subsidies before commencement of the project with the Project Report Reimbursement Subsidy Unit. 18. While rejecting the claim of the respondent Unit in respect of other subsidies, it was observed that the respondent is not entitled to other subsidies since the respondent Unit has not done negotiation in respect of those subsidies before commencement of the project with the Project Report Reimbursement Subsidy Unit. 18. Para 10 of the said order dated 1.3.2011 contained in Annexure – 7 reads as under:- **10-loZJh dksfguwj LVhy izk0 fy0 dks vU; vuqnku ;Fkk & lwn vuqnku] iznw"k.k fu;a=.k] midj.k vuqnku] eqnzkad ’kqYd rFkk fuca/ku ’kqYd] dSfIVo mtkZ vuqnku ,oa izkstsDV fjiksVZ fjbEclZesaV vuqnku bdkbZ ds lkFk ifj;kstuk izkjEHk djus ds iwoZ bu vuqnkuksa ds laca/k esa fuxksfl,’ku ugha gksus ds QyLo:Ik dafMdk 3 ,oa 5 ds dze esa nkok vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA** The above order only states that the respondent Unit has not done negotiation in respect of other subsidies before the commencement of the project with Project Report Reimbursement Subsidy Unit. The learned Single Judge observed that “there cannot be pre-negotiation and that only after setting up of the unit, one can claim subsidy admissible to the new unit”. The order dated 1.3.2011 rejecting the claim of the respondent for other subsidies only states that the respondent unit has not done negotiation prior to commencement of the production. Since the respondent Unit has not done negotiation with the State as per the Special Package for Mega Industrial Units, the respondent is not entitled to claim other subsidies. While so, the learned Single Judge was not right in directing the appellant to determine the subsidies, such as Interest Subsidy, Stamp Duty and Registration Duty Reimbursement and Pollution Control Equipments Subsidies. 19. The learned Single Judge has misconstrued the language given in the special package for the Mega Industrial Units wherein it is clearly spelt out that the other subsidy shall be given after negotiation. The said policy decision of the Government of Jharkhand granting incentives is to be strictly construed. The word “after” in the Order definitely means that pre requisite condition for granting subsidy is the negotiation. It is well settled principle of law is that the court cannot read anything into a provision containing Policies which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a provision is determinative factor of legislative intent. The word “after” in the Order definitely means that pre requisite condition for granting subsidy is the negotiation. It is well settled principle of law is that the court cannot read anything into a provision containing Policies which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in a provision is determinative factor of legislative intent. If the language of the provision is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for the courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the provision. 20. In the case of Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. [ (2007) 8 SCC 418 ], it has been held that it is well settled that public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing policies. Although the discretion is not absolute, unqualified, unfettered or uncanalised and judiciary has control over all executive actions, it is also well established that courts are ill-equipped to deal with these matters. In complex social, economic and commercial matters, decisions have to be taken by Governmental authorities keeping in view several factors, and it is not possible for courts to consider competing claims and conflicting interests and to conclude which way the balance tilted. There are no objective, justiciable or manageable standards to judge the issues, nor can such question be decided on a priori considerations. It is well settled that every power must be exercised bona fide and in good faith. In other words, every action of a public authority must be based on utmost good faith, genuine satisfaction and ought to be supported by reason and rationale. It is, therefore, not only the power but duty of the court to ensure that all authorities exercise their powers properly, lawfully and in good faith. If powers are exercised with oblique motive, bad faith or for extraneous or irrelevant considerations, there is no exercise of power known to law and the action cannot be termed as action in accordance with law. But a court of law is not expected to propel into “the unchartered ocean” of Government policies. Once it is held that the Government has power to frame and reframe, change and rechange, adjust and readjust policy, the impugned action cannot be declared illegal, arbitrary or ultra vires the provisions of the constitution only on the ground that the earlier policy had been given up, changed or not adhered to. Once it is held that the Government has power to frame and reframe, change and rechange, adjust and readjust policy, the impugned action cannot be declared illegal, arbitrary or ultra vires the provisions of the constitution only on the ground that the earlier policy had been given up, changed or not adhered to. It also cannot be attacked on the plea that the earlier policy was better and suited to the prevailing situation. 21. As pointed out earlier, the respondent Unit is a Mega Unit covered under the Special Package for Mega Industrial Units. The Special Package for Mega Industrial Units does not contemplate the Feasibility Study -Project Report Cost Reimbursement Subsidy and Captive Power Generating Subsidy and while so, the learned Single Judge was not right in directing the appellant to determine other subsidies, such as Feasibility Study -Project Report Cost Reimbursement Subsidy and Captive Power Generating Subsidy, which are not admissible and payable to the respondent Unit and thus, direction of the learned Single Judge on this score is also liable to be set aside. 22. It was stated that after the Contempt Petition was filed, the respondent was paid the Commercial Tax/VAT subsidy for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 totalling Rs.25442000/-. It was stated that the Commercial Tax/VAT reimbursement for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are pending. The payment of reimbursement equivalent to 75% of Commercial Taxes received in each financial year was not the subject-matter in the writ court. According to the respondent Unit, the said amount of Commercial Taxes/VAT reimbursement for the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 are pending. Since this point was not raised before the writ court, we are not inclined to go into the correctness of the reimbursement of VAT subsidy. In the light of the judgment in this Letters Patent Appeal, it is for the authorities to consider the claim of the respondent Unit regarding reimbursement of the Commercial Tax/VAT both for the amount already paid and also for the pending claims. 23. The order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to pay the capital investment subsidy to the respondent Unit is confirmed. 23. The order of the learned Single Judge directing the appellant to pay the capital investment subsidy to the respondent Unit is confirmed. The order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No.6727/2010 directing the appellant to determine other subsidies, such as Captive Power Generating Subsidy, Interest Subsidy, Stamp Duty and Registration Subsidy, Feasibility Study – Project Report Cost Reimbursement Subsidy, Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy, is set aside and this Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant State is directed to consider the claim of the respondent Unit for other subsidies afresh after giving opportunity to the respondent and pass order in accordance with law. In so far as the reimbursement of subsidy of Commercial Tax/VAT, as observed above in para 22, the authorities of the State are at liberty to pass fresh orders in accordance with law both in respect of the reimbursement of commercial tax amount already paid and also of the pending claims after affording sufficient opportunity to the respondent.