JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, .J. The short question which arises in this writ petition is whether the petitioner which is a Self Help Group can be put at a disadvantage and benefit of the Tripura Industrial Investment Incentives Promotion Scheme, 2012 be given to the private respondent No.3. 2. The Tripura Industrial Investment Incentives Promotion Scheme has been formulated by the State of Tripura and ‘enterprise’ has been defined to mean an industrial project in micro, small or medium sectors or even in the large sector engaged in the manufacture of certain items. 3. Clause 8 of the scheme deals with procurement preference to be given to such enterprises set up in the State of Tripura. We are concerned here mainly with sub clause (b) of Clause 8.3 which reads as follows: “b) In cases where after comparison of the landed price of all eligible tenderers, the first lowest tenderer is an enterprise from outside the State; but the price of one or more local industrial enterprise(s) is not over 15% of the price quoted by the first lowest tenderer, the said local industrial enterprise(s) shall be eligible to get supply order for 100% of the tendered quantity of the item being procured by the State Government Agencies, except in case of cement, steel and GCI sheet, where 65:35 ratio for local/outside bidders will be followed, provided that they shall be ready to supply the same by matching the price offered by the first lowest tenderer.” The scheme provides that if the local manufacturer agrees to supply the material at the price quoted by the lowest tenderer, then it shall be given the order and the item will be procured from it. 4. The State in the Department of fisheries had issued a notice inviting tenders for supply of pelleted fish feed of different kinds including sinking type of pelleted fish feed. The petitioner which is a Self Help Group submitted its tender and tender was also submitted by respondent No.3. The tender of the petitioner being the lowest has been accepted as far as six centres are concerned. The petitioner which is a Self Help Group submitted its tender and tender was also submitted by respondent No.3. The tender of the petitioner being the lowest has been accepted as far as six centres are concerned. However, for two centres i.e. Gomati and Panisagar, the bid of the petitioner though the lowest has not been accepted and the tender has been awarded to the respondent No.3 by giving benefit of the Incentives Scheme referred to herein above and Clause 11 of the tender which reads as follows: “11. Procurement preference will be given to local eligible manufacturing enterprises as per clause 8 (excluding condition of sub clause 8.4) of Tripura Industrial investment promotion incentives scheme, 2012. Such preference shall also be applicable to the local SHGs having fish feed manufacturing plant.” 5. Shri C.S Sinha, has referred to clause 29 of the tender condition which reads as follows: “Tendering authority reserves the right to inspect bidder's manufacturing unit before finalization of tender to assess their production/service capability and his evaluation will be final.” 6. The first submission of Shri Sinha is that since the petitioner is also a local enterprise in the State of Tripura, the respondent No.3 could not have been given any procurement preference. We are unable to accept this argument. The Tripura Industrial Investment Incentives Promotion Scheme applies to manufacturing industries. The reason behind the scheme is to give incentives to those industries which invest money in the State of Tripura, set up factories and manufacturing units thereby giving employment to local people. On the other hand, the petitioner though is a local Self Help Group procures the fish feed from a manufacturer based in West Bengal. No part of the manufacturing process is carried out in the State of Tripura in so far as the fish feed being supplied by the petitioner is concerned. 7. We have no doubt in our mind that the word ‘enterprise’ has to be read in the context of the definition clause 3 of the Tripura Industrial Investment Incentives Promotion Scheme and an enterprise will qualify for benefits only if it falls within definition Clause 3(iv) which clearly shows that these are manufacturing units set up in the State of Tripura. Therefore, we are unable to accept the argument of Shri Sinha that procurement preference could be given to the petitioner. 8. Therefore, we are unable to accept the argument of Shri Sinha that procurement preference could be given to the petitioner. 8. The next argument of Shri Sinha is that assuming that procurement preference can be given, the state is duty bound to ensure before finalization of the tender to assess the production/service capability of the manufacturer and also has a right to see that the material being supplied was of the highest quality. There can be no quarrel with this submission, but this is which the state has to do and we are sure that the state before taking supply from the respondent No.3 will ensure that the material which is supplied meets all the standards laid down. The state can at any time get the fish feed supplied by the respondent No.3 checked from the concerned laboratories to ensure that the quality of the feed does not suffer. 9. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this petition and accordingly it stands dismissed.