ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the original respondents in three different writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004 which was heard with W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003 with W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003. These writ petitions were preferred by respondent no. 1 of each of the Letters Patent Appeals and their writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010, whereby, payment of Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges which are exempted under Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy, 2001, by which, the original petitioners industries were permitted to be exempted. Attempt of these appellants, to charge and to levy, Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges, in pursuance of Clause no. 15.2.11 of Industrial Policy, 2001, was not permitted by the learned Single Judge and the amount towards Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges, if recovered, has also been ordered to be refunded. Thus, the main dispute involved in these three Letters Patent Appeals revolves around implementation of Clause 15.2.11 of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, floated by the State of Jharkhand. 2. It further appears in the facts of the present case that the State of Jharkhand has floated a Policy to bring the industrial units within the territory of newly born State, whereas, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as "JSEB") is creating resistance or hindrance. The pitch and tone of the argument of the JSEB is against the effective implementation of Jharkhand State Industrial Policy. Even the affidavit of the State Government is running against the affidavit filed by the JSEB. Internal dispute between the JSEB and the State Government is manifestly reflected in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Factual Matrix: Jharkhand State is a newly born State with effect from 15th November, 2000 and is carved out from the erstwhile State of Bihar. For the optimum utilization of available resources and to accelerate the industrial development and growth within the State of Jharkhand, an Industrial Policy was formulated to achieve the expected industrial growth and, to capitalise the industrial potential, throughout the State of Jharkhand, the Industrial Policy floated by the State of Jharkhand was having few exemption clauses. Such type of Industrial Policy is not so unknown in this country. Such type of Industrial Policy is not so unknown in this country. Newly established industries ought to be supported and such type of support is being given, by keeping away the burden of taxes. Under Clause 15.2.11 of the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001, exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charge was granted for few industrial units having connected load up to 500 KVA or equivalent H.P, as per billing norms. Similarly, there is Clause 22.0 meant for units undertaking for expansion/diversification/modernisation. Such units will also get the benefit of exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charge. Respondent no. 1 in all the Letters Patent Appeals, who are original petitioners, are industrial units established in the State of Jharkhand. M/s. Hi-Tech Glass Industries, Ranchi [petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004] is having a contract demand of 100 KVA of electricity. M/s Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Private Limited [petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003] is a medium scale industrial unit having initially the contract demand of 75 H.P of electricity which was later on enhanced up to 200 KVA. M/s. Maithan Coal Company Private Limited, Dhanbad [petitioner of W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003] is a small scale industrial unit having contract demand of 100 KVA of electricity which was enhanced up to 120 KVA of electricity. Thus, it appears that all the three original petitioners are having connected load up to less than 500 KVA and, hence, they are claiming exemptions from payment of Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges under Clause 15.2.11 of the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001. For the ready reference, Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy, 2001 reads as under: "15.2.11 Exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charge for new Industrial Units having connected load upto 500 KVA or equivalent H.P., as per billing norms." (Emphasis supplied) For the ready reference, Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy, 2001 reads as under: "22.0. UNITSUNTERTAKING EXPANSION/DIVERSIFICATION/MODERNISATION 22.1. Such units would be given identical treatment as new units only in respect of their incremental production due to their expansion/diversification/modernisation. All such incentives admissible to such units which are covered by the definition of expansion/diversification/modernisation as given in the Annexure, shall be provided." (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 was to remain in force from 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005, as per Clause 1 of the definitions contained in Annexure-I to the Industrial Policy. All such incentives admissible to such units which are covered by the definition of expansion/diversification/modernisation as given in the Annexure, shall be provided." (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 was to remain in force from 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005, as per Clause 1 of the definitions contained in Annexure-I to the Industrial Policy. The aforesaid Industrial Policy was approved by the Council of Ministers of the State of Jharkhand by resolution dated 25th August, 2001 which was also subsequently published in the official gazette, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. Thereafter, the Department of Energy has also passed a resolution dated 13th August, 2002 accepting the policy decision of the State and has also written a letter to the appellants for implementation of the incentive clauses of the Industrial Policy so far as it relates to power. It appears that this appellants JSEB has given another date of implementing the Industrial Policy i.e. 1st September, 2002 instead of 15th November, 2000. This is a bone of contention in all the writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals. Later on, wisdom prevailed upon this appellant and one more direction was issued by the JSEB that the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 was to be applicable from 15th November, 2000 till 31st December, 2003 provided the State Government reimburse the losses caused to the JSEB. JSEB appellants issued the electricity bills to respondent no. 1 in all the Letters Patent Appeals (original petitioners) along with the Minimum Guarantee Charges, denying the benefits of Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy, 2001. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by this action of the appellants, respondent no. 1 of these Letters Patent Appeals had preferred separate writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004, W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003, which were allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid three writ petitions, present Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by original respondents of the writ petitions. 4. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants in all three Letters Patent Appeals: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that JSEB is a separate legal entity. It can sue and can be sued. 4. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants in all three Letters Patent Appeals: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that JSEB is a separate legal entity. It can sue and can be sued. It is an autonomous body and hence, unless the JSEB appellants accept and approve the Governmental Policy, nothing is applicable to the appellants. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that drafting of the Industrial Policy is one thing and implementation thereof is altogether another thing and, hence, the notification has been published by the JSEB under section 78 A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and it has been stated therein that the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy shall be applicable with effect from 1st September, 2002 and, hence, the exemption sought for by three industrial units original petitioners from 15th November, 2000 onwards as per Clause 15.2.11 cannot be granted to them. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by respondent no. 1 in all three Letters Patent Appeals and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that later on another notification has been issued by the JSEB accepting the insistence for making the Industrial Policy effective from 15th November, 2000, but, it is accepted with a rider that the loss to be sustained by the appellants shall be reimbursed by the State Government. Thus, if the State Government bears the burden of loss caused to the appellants, the exemption will be given otherwise not. Thus, acceptance of Clause 15.2.11 of the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 was made effective from 15th November, 2000, conditionally. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the three writ petitions and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in three writ petitions deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised a new plea which has not been taken in the writ petitions that the appellants do not know whether there is expansion/diversification/modernisation by M/s. Maithan Coal Company Private Limited or not. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised a new plea which has not been taken in the writ petitions that the appellants do not know whether there is expansion/diversification/modernisation by M/s. Maithan Coal Company Private Limited or not. This brand new argument is canvassed without any basis and without any factual averments made in the writ petitions. When this question is raised by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants is unable to give answer that this point has ever been raised in the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the JSEB has all power, jurisdiction and authority to give another date of implementation of the Industrial Policy even if it is applicable with effect from 15th November, 2000. Unless the loss is reimbursed by the State Government, no exemption as envisaged under Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy will be applicable in the facts of the present case. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside 5. Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (original petitioner) in all three Letters Patent Appeals: Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 (original petitioners) submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by them vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that there is no ambiguity in the Industrial Policy much less in Clause 15.2.11, which is quoted here-in-above. Unambiguous and unequivocal clause has been unnecessarily made effective by the appellants from another date than the date on which it was made effective by the State Government and, hence, the writ petitions were preferred by original petitioners and the Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by original respondents. In fact, the Industrial Policy, which has been floated, is nothing, but, the desire of the State, which is accepted by the Council of Ministers and even by the Energy Department of the State of Jharkhand. This Industrial Policy has been floated to have the optimum utilization of the natural resources of the State of Jharkhand and to bring out highest potential available with the industries so far as expansion/diversification/modernisation is concerned. This Industrial Policy has been floated to have the optimum utilization of the natural resources of the State of Jharkhand and to bring out highest potential available with the industries so far as expansion/diversification/modernisation is concerned. Had there been no Industrial Policy like this, perhaps there will be more hesitation on the part of the industrial units to establish industries within the State of Jharkhand. Had there been no such type of Industrial Policy, perhaps there might not have been enough expansion/diversification/modernisation of the existing industrial units. The Industrial Policy floated by the State of Jharkhand has Clause 15.2.11 as referred here-in-above, which exempts from the payment of Minimum Guarantee Charges for the new industrial units having connected load up to 500 KVA or equivalent H.P as per the billing norms as well as it is applicable to the industrial units which are units undertaking expansion/diversification/modernisation as per Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that M/s. Hi-Tech Glass Industries and M/s. Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Private Limited are new industrial units, whereas, M/s. Maithan Coal Company Private Limited, Dhanbad, is covered by Clause no. 22 to be read with Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy the said units had gone for expansion/diversification/modernisation and, hence, all three original petitioners were entitled to exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charges during the lifetime of the Industrial Policy, 2001 i.e. 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005, as per Clause 1 of the Definitions Clause of Annexure I to the Industrial Policy, 2001. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 that the State Government has not only enacted the Policy, but, has also published a notification for implementation thereof. Council of Ministers have also accepted the Industrial Policy, 2001. Even a separate acceptance of the Industrial Policy has also been made by the Department of Energy of the State of Jharkhand and direction has also been given by the Department of Energy to the JSEB appellants to implement and execute the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy. These facts are admitted facts even by the learned counsel for the appellants and, hence, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 is not referring too much in detail about the dates and annexures. Learned counsel for respondent no. These facts are admitted facts even by the learned counsel for the appellants and, hence, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 is not referring too much in detail about the dates and annexures. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has also submitted that now the appellants have published a notification, which was never required under section 78 A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 that the Industrial Policy was accepted by the appellants, but, the date of implementation was to be applicable from 1st September, 2002. Later on after some passage of time, wisdom must have been prevailed upon the appellants and new letter/notification was published by the appellants that the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy was accepted and was made effective from 15th November, 2000 provided the State Government is reimbursing the loss caused to the appellants. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that the State agencies or instrumentalities cannot be wiser than the State itself. Individual gain or loss cannot be looked into by the State instrumentalities. It may happen that one of the organs of the State may sustain loss, whereas, the State as a whole may gain more than what is lost by one of the State instrumentalities and, hence, the rider applied by the appellants that unless and until the loss is reimbursed, the exemption Clause 15.2.11 is not applicable to the original petitioners, this rider has got no value in the eye of law. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by the original petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that once the Industrial Policy is floated by the State Government, it cannot be suitably modified by the JSEB. If every department behaves like the Electricity Board, perhaps one by one all the clauses will be modified and new Industrial Policy will have to be gathered by different type of letters and resolutions of the different departments of the Government. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by the original petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by the original petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 further submitted that all three original petitioners have connected load less than 500 KVA or equivalent H.P. Two original petitioners are new industrial units whereas, the third one, as stated here-in-above, is falling within expansion/diversification/modernisation clause. Once the Industrial Policy is enacted, the appellants are also bound by the said Industrial Policy especially exemption clause thereof. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in 2002(2) PLJR 529 as well as the decision reported in 2001(1) JLJR 678(SC). On the basis of the aforesaid two decisions, it has been submitted by the counsel for respondent no. 1 that neither section 78 A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 nor section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003 permits the appellants to deny the benefits of Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy, 2001. In fact, the Electricity Act, 2003 have been brought into effect from 10th June, 2003, whereas, the Industrial Policy has been floated from 2001 and made effective from 15th November, 2000 as per Annexure-I to the Industrial Policy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 that payment of Minimum Guarantee Charges, though is exempted, has already been partly recovered, which has also been ordered to be refunded but, the same may be refunded with interest as mentioned in Clause 11.10.3 of the Electricity Supply Code enacted under section 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. REASONS: 6. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain these Letters Patent Appeals mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) Jharkhand is a nascent State and is carved out from the erstwhile State of Bihar on 15th November, 2000. Resources were abundantly available, but, the users were to be invited otherwise, resources would have gone in waste and, hence, Industrial Policy, 2001 was floated by the State of Jharkhand for optimum utilization of the resources of the State and to accelerate the industrial development of the State. Resources were abundantly available, but, the users were to be invited otherwise, resources would have gone in waste and, hence, Industrial Policy, 2001 was floated by the State of Jharkhand for optimum utilization of the resources of the State and to accelerate the industrial development of the State. For few existing industrial units, there is also a clause in the Industrial Policy that if they are going for further growth of their existing industrial units, either by expansion or by diversification or by modernisation, they will also get something from the Industrial Policy. Normally, new industrial units are coming to the State which are providing tax holidays. If the burden of tax is reduced, there shall be mushroom growth of the industries. This methodology has been adopted by several States in this country and newly born State is following those States which are already having such type of Industrial Policies. (ii) The Industrial Policy, 2001 which is enacted by the State of Jharkhand is having Clause 15.2.11 for alluring the new industrial units and also there is Clause 22 for alluring the existing industrial units, for their expansion/diversification/modernisation. For the ready references, these two Clauses have already been quoted here-in-above. (iii) As per Clause 15.2.11, there shall be an exemption from the payment of Minimum Guarantee Charges, for new industrial units having connected load up to 500 KVA or equivalent H.P, as per billing norms. (iv) As per Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy, 2001, if the existing units are undertaking expansion/diversification/modernisation, they will also get the benefit of exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charges. (v) Here, we are concerned with three industrial units M/s. Hi-Tech Glass Industries having connected load up to 100 KVA, M/s. Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Private Limited having contract demand of 75 H.P which is enhanced up to 200 KVA and M/s. Maithan Coal Company Private Limited having contract demand of 100 KVA which is enhanced up to 120 KVA of electricity. Thus, all three petitioners were having connected load less than 500 KVA and, therefore, they are covered by Clause 15.2.11 to be read with Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy. (vi) It further appears that the Industrial Policy, 2001 of the State of Jharkhand was to remain in force from 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005, as per Definitions Clause, as enshrined in Annexure-I appended to the Industrial Policy. (vi) It further appears that the Industrial Policy, 2001 of the State of Jharkhand was to remain in force from 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005, as per Definitions Clause, as enshrined in Annexure-I appended to the Industrial Policy. (vii) The aforesaid Industrial Policy is a policy decision of the State and approved by the Council of Ministers vide their resolution dated 25th August, 2001. (viii) Thereafter, though there was no much need in the eye of law, nonetheless, over cautious Department of Energy has also published a resolution dated 13th August, 2002 adopting the Industrial Policy floated by the State of Jharkhand. Moreover, the Energy Department has also written a letter to the JSEB appellants of all three Letters Patent Appeals that they will have to execute and implement the Industrial Policy so far as they are concerned with the generation, supply and distribution of the electricity. It goes without saying that there cannot be any other date of implementation of the Industrial Policy than what is stated in the Industrial Policy itself. As per Annexure-I of the Industrial Policy, it was to remain in force from 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005. (ix) The appellants JSEB have issued a notification/resolution that the Industrial Policy, 2001 floated by the State Government, which is also accepted by the Council of the Ministers, which is also accepted by the Department of Energy and despite the fact that the said Industrial Policy as per Annexure-I was made effective from 15th November, 2000, but, as per the JSEB it will be brought into force with effect from 1st September, 2002. This has given birth to three Writ Petitions and three Letters Patent Appeals. (x) Later on, after passage of some time, the wisdom has prevailed upon the JSEB and another resolution was published that the Industrial Policy, 2001 of the State Government shall now be applicable to the industrial units with effect from 15th November, 2000, but, the rider has been added that if the State of Jharkhand is reimbursing the loss, sustained by the JSEB, then only the benefit of Clause no. 15.2.11 shall be given to the industrial units. Thus, JSEB is wiser than the Government of Jharkhand. (xi) It ought to be kept in mind that the State instrumentalities ought to support the Industrial Policy enacted, floated and implemented by the State Government. 15.2.11 shall be given to the industrial units. Thus, JSEB is wiser than the Government of Jharkhand. (xi) It ought to be kept in mind that the State instrumentalities ought to support the Industrial Policy enacted, floated and implemented by the State Government. It ought to be kept in mind that no resolution or decision can be taken by the State instrumentalities which causes hindrances or creates obstructions, for effective implementation of the Industrial Policy. It appears that a counter affidavit which was filed by the JSEB in the writ petitions and the affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand are not in the same direction. It appears that the aforesaid affidavit filed by the State Government is in favour of this original petitioners and the State instrumentalities JSEB is wiser than the State Government. The JSEB has its own date of implementation of the Industrial Policy which is initially 1st September, 2002 and later on 15th November, 2000, with a condition of reimbursement of the losses. This is not permissible in the eye of law. JSEB is nothing, but, an organ of the State of Jharkhand. Only for administrative purposes, the department of the Government has been separated, so that each and every file may not go up to highest level or up to the Ministry. For speedy decisions, the Boards and Corporations are being separated from the Government departments. Such type of Corporations and Boards have to follow the policies of the Government without any exceptions and without any riders. They cannot be holier-than-thou, otherwise, the very purpose, for which the Industrial Policy has been enacted or floated by the State of Jharkhand, will be frustrated. (xii) If this situation is permitted by the Court under a lame excuse that the JSEB is a separate legal entity and it can sue and can be sued, perhaps, no new industrial units will come in the State of Jharkhand. The new industrial units are coming in the State of Jharkhand not because of the JSEB, but, because of the Industrial Policy and, hence also, the JSEB cannot be wiser than the State Government. The new industrial units are coming in the State of Jharkhand not because of the JSEB, but, because of the Industrial Policy and, hence also, the JSEB cannot be wiser than the State Government. In fact, the State Government has shown much leniency to the Board of Directors of the JSEB otherwise, no sooner did the counter affidavit is filed in the writ petition, which is singing absolutely another tune than what is stated by the State of Jharkhand in the counter affidavit, immediately such type of Board of Directors could have been stepped down by the Government of Jharkhand. It appears that the State of Jharkhand has taken much lenient view to the appellants. Industries are coming to the State of Jharkhand because of several factors like tax holidays or tax concessions or deferment in the payment of tax or sometimes lenient subsidies. Types and types of factors have to be taken into consideration by the State, for bringing industries within the newly born State of Jharkhand. If every organ of the State is walking and thinking in another direction, the whole Industrial Policy will get scattered and every Department will modify each and every Clause which cumulatively cannot attract the industry. This is nothing, but, an arrogant approach of the appellants. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the benefits to the original petitioners of Clauses 15.2.11 as well as Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy. (xiii) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanpur Cements Ltd., Patna. v. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2002(2) PLJR 529 especially in paragraph nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24, which read as under: "21. From a conjoint reading of clause 22, 23 and 24 it would clearly appear that the State Government declared its determination to take effective measures and to render all possible assistance for amelioration of the said malaise. The Government had also declared that continuing problems of industrial sickness was a matter of great concern for the Government. Clause 24 of the Policy clearly reads that all concerned departments and organisations will issue follow up notifications to give effect to the provisions of the policy within a month and this would be appropriately monitored by the Government. The Policy came into being in the year 1995. Clause 24 of the Policy clearly reads that all concerned departments and organisations will issue follow up notifications to give effect to the provisions of the policy within a month and this would be appropriately monitored by the Government. The Policy came into being in the year 1995. In accordance with the declaration made and the assurance given by the State Government a notification was required to be issued by the concerned department/organisation within one month of the policy to give effect to the provisions of the policy. Clause 24 clearly provided that issuance of the notification to give effect to the provisions of the policy would be appropriately monitored by the Government. The policy reserved a right unto the Government to carry out mid term review of the policy. From a fair reading of clause 24 it would clearly appear that immediately after enforcement of the Industrial Policy, 1995 all concerned departments and organisations were required to issue notification to give effect to the provisions of the policy. The Government had undertaken to monitor this. Non issuance of the notification by the concerned departments and organisations in fact was a bad act on the part of the said departments and organisations. The Government in fact failed in appropriately monitoring the action of the concerned departments and organisations. In our considered opinion the Government cannot take the stand that as a notification in accordance with clause 24 was not issued, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. When the Government has undertaken to monitor issuance of the notification then it cannot shirk the liability by saying that as no notification has been issued the petitioner's case cannot be considered. 22. From Clause 22.2 which relates to sickness in large and medium sector, it would clearly appear that a committee with Industrial Development Commissioner as its head is to be constituted to evolve suitable measures for potentially viable non BIFR sick industrial units including PSUs in the large and medium sector. Clause 22.2 of the policy would come into force after a notification under clause 24 is issued. In the present matter it appears that the cart has been put before the horse. Clause 22.2 of the policy would come into force after a notification under clause 24 is issued. In the present matter it appears that the cart has been put before the horse. Without issuing the notification the case of the petitioner was considered and all of a sudden the State Government took a somersault and started asserting that as no notification under Clause 24 was issued and as no approval was given by the committee under Clause 22.2(i) of the policy, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. A further perusal of Clause 22.2 would show that a committee headed by Industrial Development Commissioner has to evolve suitable measures and thereafter to recommend concessions and facilities including those in the policy statement, if considered necessary for revival of the unit. The said recommendations were to be placed before the Government through State Level Empowered Committee already constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for final decision. Sub clause (3) of Clause 22.2 provides that rehabilitation measures for sick but potentially viable industrial units may inter-alia, including reliefs and concessions or sacrifice from various Government departments/organisations and/or additional facilities including allocation of power from BSEB/DVC and any other agency/statutory body/local authority. Clause 22.3 though not relevant for the present purposes simply provides that closed and sick industrial units which have once availed of the facility of sales tax exemption/deferment under a rehabilitation package prepared by BIFR shall not get the same facility again if they turn sick or are closed again. It is not in dispute before us that the petitioner is not an industrial unit/industrial concern nor it is said by the respondent that the petitioner was otherwise not entitled to the concessions/incentives as provided under the scheme. 23. From the explanation appended to subparagraph (d) of the paragraphs of the Annexure annexed to the Industrial Policy, it would clearly appear that for the purposes of concessions/benefits relating to sales tax, only such units shall be deemed to be industrial units which carry on the business of manufacturing goods for sale. The word "manufacture", with all its grammatical variations and cognate expression, shall have the same meaning as defined in the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The word "manufacture", with all its grammatical variations and cognate expression, shall have the same meaning as defined in the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. From a conjoint reading of Clause 22, 23, 24 and the definition clauses annexed to the policy, it would clearly appear that the Government was obliged to monitor issuance of the notification and the concerned departments and organisations were also bound to issue follow up notifications to give effect to the provisions of the policy within one month. At this junction of time the State Government cannot be allowed to say that because the notification was not issued, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. This was a serious lapse on the part of the State Government in not monitoring the issuance of the notification and it was also a lapse on the part of the concerned departments and organisations in not issuing the follow up notifications within one month. It is trite that one cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. When the policy clearly provided that a notification would be issued within one month by the concerned department/organisation then the Government was obliged to issue further direction as a monitoring agency to the department/organisation to issue the notifications. It appears that on one side the Government failed in monitoring the matter and on the other hand is trying to take advantage of its own wrong. 24. The stand of the State Government that, the policy has lapsed on 31.8.2000, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, is not a palatable defence. Once an assurance is given by the State Government in form of Industrial Policy then the Government had to fulfil its commitments. Non-fulfilment of the assurances is bad on the part of the State Government and they cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own lapses by raising a plea that the policy had lapsed less realising that the petitioner made the application much before the policy had lapsed. No body from the side of the State Government is ready and willing to say as to why final orders were not passed in relation to issuance of the notifications and relating to the petitioner's entitlement during the currency/subsistence of the policy. No body from the side of the State Government is ready and willing to say as to why final orders were not passed in relation to issuance of the notifications and relating to the petitioner's entitlement during the currency/subsistence of the policy. Even otherwise it is trite law that if a right has accrued in favour of somebody then lapse of such policy subsequent to making of the application would not adversely affect the right of such person because the person in authority cannot be allowed to say that because of his own inaction he has made the application of the other party infructuous. The policy does not contain any provision to show that if an application is not decided during the subsistence or survival of the policy then the application would stand rejected. The policy also nowhere says that in case a notification under Clause 24 of the policy is not issued then too the entitlement of a claimant would come to an end. In our considered opinion, if the petitioner was entitled to certain concessions during the subsistence of the policy then the lapse of the policy or subsequent change in the policy would not disentitle him from claiming the benefits" (Emphasis supplied) (xiv) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. K.D. Industries etc. M/s. Bajaj Petro Impex (P) Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 2001(1) JLJR 678 (SC) especially in paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12, which read as under: 10. Faced with this situation Mr. Reddy submitted that the Respondents had not fully accepted the Government Policy and had by their Resolution dated 11th October, 1996 only granted exemption to high tension connections. He submitted that this is made clear by the fact that in the Resolution the words used are "minimum base charge" and "for connected load upto 500 KVA". 11. Mr. Reddy relied upon Section 78A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and submitted that Government directions were not necessarily binding on the Respondents. He submitted that the Respondents could dispute the direction issued by the Government. 11. Mr. Reddy relied upon Section 78A of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 and submitted that Government directions were not necessarily binding on the Respondents. He submitted that the Respondents could dispute the direction issued by the Government. He relied upon the case of Ester Industries Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board reported in (1996) 11 SCC 199 , wherein it is held that the State Government's policy direction for grant of developmental rebate at a specified rate to newly set up industries was not binding on the State Electricity Board and that the High Court could not in exercise of powers under Article 226 direct the Board to implement such direction. He submitted that in this case the Respondents had chosen not to fully accept the policy direction of the State Government and had accepted it only in respect of high tension connections. He submitted that the High Court was right in refusing to grant any relief to the Appellants. 12. We see no substance in this submission. The Board is accepting, the Government's directions given to it under Section 78A of the Electricity Supply Act. In its Resolution it is granting exemption from payment of minimum guarantee (minimum base charge). The Respondents are well aware of the difference between low tension connections and high tension connections. If, as is claimed, the term "minimum guarantee charge" is not used for high tension connections, then they would not have used that term at all in the Resolution if they wanted to restrict the exemption to high tension connections. Advisedly they have used both the terms "Minimum Guarantee" and "Minimum Base Charge". This itself shows that the exemption applied to both types of connections. Respondents have not stated that such exemption would not be granted to low tension connections. In our view, the Respondents having adopted the direction of the Government are bound to comply with those directions. So long as the other conditions of the Policy decision are complied with the exemption has to be for both high tension connections as well as low tension connections. In our view, the Respondents having adopted the direction of the Government are bound to comply with those directions. So long as the other conditions of the Policy decision are complied with the exemption has to be for both high tension connections as well as low tension connections. (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decisions, the policy enacted and floated by the State Government and which is approved by the Council of the Ministers is binding to the organs of the State Government and in the facts of the present case, it is binding to the JSEB, even for effective date of implementation. There cannot be any other implementation date than what is stated by the Government and than what is envisaged by the Industrial Policy itself. In the facts of the present case, the Industrial Policy, 2001 is having a life from 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005 and the appellants have no power, jurisdiction and authority to curtail the operational period of this Industrial Policy. Initially, the appellants have published the effective date as 1st September, 2002. That was also a wrong decision of the appellants. Later on, it was made effective from 15th November, 2000, but, with a condition that if the State Government reimburse the loss, the benefit of exemption will be given. This is also not permissible in the eye of law. (xv) It ought to be kept in mind that whenever any Industrial Policy is floated by the State itself and when few concessions or exemptions are granted, there is bound to be a temporary loss to few of the State instrumentalities. Such type of temporary loss caused to the State instrumentalities cannot be a reason not to implement the Industrial Policy, conditionally. Short sighted appellants have lost sight of the fact that there may be temporary loss to the appellants, but, there will be huge gain by the State itself. Industry is the backbone of the country and also of the State. Unless there is industrial growth, there cannot be any economical development. It is botheration of the State how to bring the industry within the State. It is botheration of the State how to encourage the existing industry to go for expansion or diversification or modernisation. The State has to give few concessions or tax holidays or exemption from payment of few types of charges or levies etc. It is botheration of the State how to bring the industry within the State. It is botheration of the State how to encourage the existing industry to go for expansion or diversification or modernisation. The State has to give few concessions or tax holidays or exemption from payment of few types of charges or levies etc. If such type of situation is allowed, then even there can be little bit of loss to the Municipality also, in some cases, if entry tax is exempted, that does not mean that Municipality can have its own amended exemption clauses. State instrumentalities cannot rewrite such type of exemption clauses. State instrumentalities cannot modify the clause of exemption of the Industrial Policy for any reason whatsoever. If the appellants feel that there will be loss by the Industrial Policy, it is an internal matter between the appellants State instrumentality and the State itself. Such type of disputes or differences between the organs of the State and State itself could not have been brought on surface by filing an affidavit in the writ petition against the tone of the affidavit filed by the State Government. There cannot be different intention of the State instrumentality for effective execution of the Industrial Policy than that of the State, even if loss has been caused to the appellants. It may happen that one organ of the State may sustain loss, but, overall there shall be gain to the State of Jharkhand. (xvi) Even otherwise also, the Industrial Policy, 2001, looking to the facts of the present case and the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand has created an estoppel for the State. Now, the exemption Clause 15.2.11 and Clause 22 cannot be made effective from any other date than from 15th November, 2000 nor these Clauses can be made conditional as thought fit by the appellants, individually, which is in contradiction with the thinking of the State. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by respondent no. 1 in all three Letters Patent Appeals. 7. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions preferred by respondent no. 1 in all three Letters Patent Appeals. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004, W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003 vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge. It appears that only because of the appellants' approach to the Industrial Policy, which is running counter to the approach of the State Government, the whole litigation has been started, namely, three Writ Petitions and three Letters Patent Appeals. The appellants have given another date of execution of the Industrial Policy which is later on repaired, but, conditionally, which is also not permissible in the eye of law. We, therefore, dismiss these Letters Patent Appeals with a cost of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) which will be deposited by the appellants JSEB within four weeks from today. 8. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited before the Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, which shall be kept in a separate Bank Account in a Nationalized Bank by the Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 9. It is submitted that some formalities are going on for constituting a separate head for Juvenile Justice Fund by Finance Department of the Government of Jharkhand with the Treasury officials. 10. Hence, till the said formalities are completed for giving separate head to the Juvenile Justice Fund by the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, in consultation with the Treasury officials, the aforesaid amount shall be accepted by the Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the said amount shall be deposited in a separate Bank Account of a Nationalized Bank. This amount shall be utilized as Juvenile Justice Fund, keeping in mind the duties to be performed by the State under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, for the welfare of the children, within the State of Jharkhand. 11. This amount shall be utilized as Juvenile Justice Fund, keeping in mind the duties to be performed by the State under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, for the welfare of the children, within the State of Jharkhand. 11. Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to: (i) the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand; (ii) all the Secretaries of the various Departments of the State of Jharkhand. (iii) all the public sector undertakings, owned, managed, controlled and financed by the State of Jharkhand.