JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. The petitioner has assailed a reasoned Order dated November 30, 2010 passed by the Executive Director of the respondent no. 2. 2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had established a milk product unit in the State of West Bengal. The petitioner became entitled to subsidy under the Central Scheme as well as the prevailing State Scheme. The State Scheme in question is the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000. The petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 1253 of 2010 seeking reliefs with regard to the disbursal of the incentives. By an Order dated October 6, 2010, such writ petition was disposed of by directing the representation made by the petitioner in this regard, to be decided. He has submitted that, the impugned order passed pursuant to such direction has relied upon Clause 17A of the Scheme of 2000 to deny the claim of the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 and has submitted that, Clause 17A has been introduced subsequently. He has submitted that, Clause 17A relates to industries engaged in providing services and that, the petitioner is not engaged in such kind of business. Therefore, Clause 17A of the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 is not attracted. Clause 17A of West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 provides that, the subsidy received by an applicant from other sources would be adjusted towards the subsidy receivable under the Scheme. The parent Scheme, prior to its amendment, did not contain such prohibition. Since the petitioner does not come within the scope and ambit of the industries covered by Clause 17A, the petitioner is entitled to subsidy both from the Central as well as the State. He has submitted that, the impugned order has proceeded on the basis that, since the petitioner has received the Central subsidy, it is not entitled to the State subsidy. He has submitted that, the respondent no. 2 had misunderstood and misapplied Clause 17A of the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has referred to the various definitions appearing in the Scheme of 2000 and has submitted that, the petitioner is within the scope and ambit of the Scheme of 2000. 2 had misunderstood and misapplied Clause 17A of the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has referred to the various definitions appearing in the Scheme of 2000 and has submitted that, the petitioner is within the scope and ambit of the Scheme of 2000. He has submitted that, the nature of business of the petitioner brings it within the scope and ambit of Clause 17A. He has referred to the eligibility certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and has submitted that, such eligibility certificate is in consonance of Clause 8.1 of the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000. He has further submitted that, the impugned order is well reasoned and such order has taken into consideration all aspects. The petitioner has no case to canvass. 5. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has adopted the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. In addition he has referred to Clause 17A of the Scheme and has submitted that, the petitioner falls within the industries referred to therein. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. 7. The petitioner wanted to set up a new unit for manufacture of milk and milk products in the District Hooghly, West Bengal. The Central Government had released a grant-in-aid to the petitioner on December 22, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs. The second installment for grant-in-aid for equal amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was released by the Central Government in favour of the petitioner on December 28, 2005. 8. The petitioner was issued a certificate of registration under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 showing that, the petitioner was a manufacturer of milk and ghee. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that it is covered by the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000. In its original form, the Scheme of 2000 did not prohibit a person entitled to the incentive under such Scheme, not to receive the incentive of such Scheme, in the event it receives incentive under any other scheme. This prohibition has been introduced by Clause 17A. Clause 17A of the Scheme of 2000 is as follows:- “Incentives to service related activities in Food Processing sector and development of post harvest infrastructure:- 1. Units set up having the following mechanised facilities jointly or severally. This prohibition has been introduced by Clause 17A. Clause 17A of the Scheme of 2000 is as follows:- “Incentives to service related activities in Food Processing sector and development of post harvest infrastructure:- 1. Units set up having the following mechanised facilities jointly or severally. (a) Grading, shorting, washing and pre-cooling. (b) Controlled atmosphere/modified atmosphere, packing system (c) Cold storage (d) Refrigerated vehicle. 2. Multi-purpose cold storage units suitable for storing fruits, vegetables, flowers, fish meat, milk and milk products. 3. Units based on application of bio-technology tissue-culture laboratory, hybrid seed production centre, plant health clinic. 4. Centre for production of intermediate products and semi processed products for preservation of raw materials to supply the processing unit. 5. Units engaged in production of fermented vegetables, dehydrated fruit pulp, pickling, nutrient pulp and fruit and vegetable crude oil extraction from aromatic and medicinal plant. 6. Bee keeping units and mash room cultivation and processing units in artificially controlled atmosphere will be entitled to the benefits under WBIS 2000 as provided under clause 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the WBIS, 2000. The units registered with District Industries Centre or with the Director of Industries will only be eligible for being considered for benefits under the Scheme. The project will have to be approved by FPI & H Department. Cold storage including Multi-purpose cold storage will have to obtain licence, if required, from Agriculture Marketing Department of the Govt. of West Bengal for getting registration from the District Industries Centre in respect of small scale unit and from Director of Industries for large and medium scale units. Release of Incentives will be subject to the technical opinion of FPI & H Deptt., if case of any doubt. State capital investment subsidy will be released on completion of total work. Project completion certificate should be issued by FPI & H Department of the Govt. of West Bengal. Such units enjoying benefits from any other source will not, however, be entitled to the benefits under West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000. This provision will come into force with effect from 01.01.2002. This notification is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Deptt. vide there U.O. No. FPI-46 dt. 15.11.2001.” 10. Clause 17A prohibits an industry having services related activities in the food processing sector from receiving the incentives under the Scheme of 2000, if it receives an incentive under any other scheme. This notification is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Deptt. vide there U.O. No. FPI-46 dt. 15.11.2001.” 10. Clause 17A prohibits an industry having services related activities in the food processing sector from receiving the incentives under the Scheme of 2000, if it receives an incentive under any other scheme. 11. It has been strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that, Clause 17A relates to service related food processing sector and that, the petitioner does not fall in such sector. 12. The Central Government granted aid to the petitioner for setting up of a new unit for manufacture of milk and milk products. Such unit was treated to be under food storage and warehousing by the Central Government. The petitioner has such a unit. Manufacture of milk and its storage requires service. The unit may have an integrated service mechanism or it may hire service providers for such purpose. It has not been demonstrated that, the petitioner had appointed service providers. In absence of such evidence, it may be inferred that, the petitioner has a provision for integrated service in relation to its activities that would draw the petitioner within the scope and ambit of Clause 17A. The petitioner being governed by such Clause 17A, the prohibition engrafted therein operates to deny the petitioner receipt of the benefits of the Incentive under the Scheme of 2000 having received the benefit under the Central Scheme. 13. The impugned order has taken into consideration Clause 17A of the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 2000 and has negated the claim of the petitioner on such basis. 14. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting an interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. W.P. No. 133 of 2011 is dismissed. No order as to costs.