JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed by two share holders of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries having registered office at C-7, Ganga Vihar Colony, Dwarikesh Nagar, P.O. Medhpura Sultan, District Bijnor, challenging Sugar Policy of 2013 promulgated by State Government vide Principal Secretary, Sugar Industries and Cane Development Department’s letter dated 28.1.2013. It is contended that aforesaid policy is arbitrary inasmuch it causes discrimination in favour of new sugar industries vis-a-vis already established Units by granting extraordinary concessions to new Industries and putting existing Units in unequal competition with new industries, would cause huge loss to public exchequer. Reliance is placed on Col. A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India and others, 1980 (Supp) SCC 559 and State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Mala Banerjee, (2015) 7 SCC 698 . 2. Brief facts as pleaded in the writ petition are as under. 3. Two petitioners are share holders of M/s. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Sugar Company”) Sugar Company is apparently engaged in the business of production and sale of white crystal sugar by Vacuum Pan Process. Molasses is obtained by Sugar company as a by product. A Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 (hereinafter referred to “SIPP, 2004”) was notified by State Government of U.P. on 24.8.2004 inviting investment for setting up Sugar Industries in the State of U.P. offering certain concessions, exemptions and incentives to prospective Entrepreneurs. vide Government Order dated 14.11.2006, SIPP, 2004 was made effective upto 31.3.2005. Petitioner’s Sugar Company took a decision in the Board’s meeting to invest heavily for establishing new Sugar Units alongwith Distillery and Co-generation Plants so as to avail benefits under SIPP, 2004. Some of the benefits and incentives offered under SIPP, 2004 which increased lure of petitioner’s Sugar Company for investment in new units are as under: Exemptions : (i) Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax/Central Sales Tax on sale of Molasses. (ii) Zero rate of Administrative charges on Molasses. (iii) Entry Tax on sale of Non-Levy Sugar. (iv) Purchase Tax on Sugarcane. (v) Registration charges on land. (vi) Stamp duty on land. Reimbursements: (i) Society Commission on purchase of cane. (ii) Sugar Transportation. (iii) Sugarcane Transportation. (iv) 10% Capital Subsidy (one-time) 4. (ii) Zero rate of Administrative charges on Molasses. (iii) Entry Tax on sale of Non-Levy Sugar. (iv) Purchase Tax on Sugarcane. (v) Registration charges on land. (vi) Stamp duty on land. Reimbursements: (i) Society Commission on purchase of cane. (ii) Sugar Transportation. (iii) Sugarcane Transportation. (iv) 10% Capital Subsidy (one-time) 4. Eligibility criteria for availing benefit under SIPP, 2004, provided Policy, read as under: Investment Area: For investment to be made in new sugar mill or expansion of existing mill and up of down-stream industries (distillery and Co-Gen, etc.) Investment quantum and period for availing the benefits: For investment involving not less that Rs. 350 crores, benefits to be available for five years, similarly, where investment involves not less than Rs. 500 crores, benefits to be available for ten years; the benefits in both case were allowed subject to fulfillment of the prescribed conditions, i.e., from the date of commencement of commercial production or the date of eligibility, whichever, is later. Period for implementation of the project under the Sugar Policy: The benefits under the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy-2004 are available only for those companies/units, who implement/commission their projects, commence commercial production within the period from 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2007 and obtain the certificate of eligibility from the Government. (Later on, in view of success of Policy, on 14th November 2006, the above period was extended for further period of one year being up to 31st March 2008). Hence, the period of implementation is 1st April 2004 to 31st March 2008. (emphasis added) 5. It was also provided in SIPP, 2004 that any Group or Industry if undertakes an expansion of existing Sugar units or sets up a new Sugar unit or establishment of down stream by-units, based on the capital investment of the Company, it shall be provided certain exemptions/reimbursements on amount of such investment i.e., in case of capital investment of more than Rs. 350/- crores but less than 500 crores and/or more than 500 crores and if production of said expanded unit or newly installed unit commenced from 31.3.2007, then such unit/company shall be given following exemptions/remissions: a. Exemption from Entry Tax on Sugar b. Exemption from Purchase Tax on Sugarcane c. Exemption from UPTT/CST on sale of Molasses d. Zero rate of Administrative charges on Molasses e. Reimbursement of Sugarcane Transportation f. Reimbursement of Sugar transportation g. Reimbursement of Society Commission h. Reimbursement of 10% Subsidy on Capital Investment i. Exemption from Stamp Duty j. Exemption from Registration charges 6. To give effect to SIPP, 2004, consequential notifications/Government Orders were issued under respective Statute by concerned Departments. These notifications were issued by Tax and Registration Department, Excise Department etc. The period of implementation was further extended from 31.3.2007 to 31.3.2008 vide Government Order dated 14.11.2006. Initially exemptions were available as soon as unit/Company furnishes a certificate from Chartered Accountant that it has actually invested at lease 1/3 amount of required investment and the remaining entire amount would be invested by 31.3.2007, but the said provision was rescinded by amendment made in SIPP, 2004 on 17.12.2004 and provision was made for rebate/incentives on capital investment of a maximum of 350 crores or Rs. 500 crores as under: “i. The facility of Capital Subsidy of 10% shall be permitted on establishment of new units related to Sugar Industry, viz., Ethanol from Molasses, Alcohol, co-general from Bagasse and on expansion of capacity by any company/unit engaged in manufacture of sugar at present, investing a minimum of Rs. 350 crores or Rs. 500 crores but the establishment of Alcohol/Ethanol and Co-generation Units shall be under the prevailing Excise and Energy Policy. ii. Rebate shall be permitted on Stamp Duty for registration and registration fee for the land purchased for establishment of new units related to Sugar Industry, viz., Ethanol from Molasses, Alcohol, Co-generation from bagasse and on expansion of capacity of the sugar mills by the company/unit engaged in manufacture of sugar at present. iii. All the facilities permitted under this Policy shall be extended on expanded capacity to the existing company/unit engaged in manufacture of sugar at present.” 7. Subsequently, with the change of Government, SIPP, 2004 was scrapped vide Government Order dated 4.6.2007. iii. All the facilities permitted under this Policy shall be extended on expanded capacity to the existing company/unit engaged in manufacture of sugar at present.” 7. Subsequently, with the change of Government, SIPP, 2004 was scrapped vide Government Order dated 4.6.2007. The said Government Order also provided that to ensure payment of appropriate price to the Sugar Cane Farmers, Government is in the process of making a new well considered policy. Petitioners Company in the meantime had invested more than 600/- crores and commissioned two Sugar Units at Dwarikesh Puram and Dwarikesh Dham on 31.12.2005 and 17.12.2007 respectively. A new Ethanol and Distillery Plant at Dwarikesh Nagar was commissioned on 16.2.2005. It also established three co-generation plants at Dwarikesh Nagar, Dwarikesh Puram and Dwarikesh Dham with a total generation capacity of 85.5 Mega Watt and these three plants were commissioned on 18.11.2004, 4.2.2008 and 9.2.2008, respectively. Company, in all, invested Rs. 442 crore upto 31.5.2007 and thus was entitled of incentives of the first level (Rs. 350 crores) and thereafter for the incentives of second level (Rs. 500 crore) on 31.3.2008 having invested more than Rs. 600 crore by that time. It had also employed 1932 workers under the terms of policy. It had taken term loan for establishing above units, relying on the policy of State Government vide SIPP, 2004, so as to avail incentives/benefits thereunder. As per petitioner’s own showing, interest liability accruing to petitioner’ company against term loan received from various financial institutions, for the purpose of establishing new units so as to avail the benefit under SIPP, 2004, is as under: Year Per annum Liability Per month Liability Per day Liability 2007-08 4264.58 355.38 11.85 2008-09 4277.29 356.44 11.88 2009-10 3434.16 286.18 9.54 2010-11 2577.35 214.78 7.16 2011-12 1731.16 144.26 4.81 2012-13 897.63 74.8 2.49 2013-14 382.02 31.84 1.06 2014-15 284.73 23.73 0.79 2015-16 206.18 17.18 0.57 2016-17 127.64 10.64 0.35 2017-18 49.09 4.09 0.14 8. An application was submitted by petitioner’s company for grant of eligibility certificate on 31.3.2008 but when no action was taken, Writ Petition No. 5848 (MB) of 2008 was filed seeking direction to the Government for grant of eligibility certificate. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to concerned authority to dispose of application within a period of six weeks vide judgment dated 2.9.2008. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to concerned authority to dispose of application within a period of six weeks vide judgment dated 2.9.2008. Application was rejected vide order dated 24.7.2008 on the ground that SIPP, 2004 was scrapped on 4.6.2007 while application was filed on 31.3.2008 claiming benefit under SIPP, 2004, hence no action is possible on the said application. Challenging orders dated 4.6.2007 and 24.7.2008, petitioner-Sugar Company filed Writ Petition No. 6978 (MB) of 2008. Similar writ petitions were also filed by some other Sugar Companies. It is said that challenging SIPP, 2004, Writ Petition No. 4031 (PIL) of 2006 was filed by one Kanhaiya Lal Gidvani in which State Government supported SIPP, 2004 in its counter-affidavit and some of the reasons which are quoted by present petitioners in para-46 of writ petition taken from counter-affidavit filed by State of U.P. are as under: “The policy is in the best interest not only of the Sugar Industry but in the larger public interest as well. The State has extensively analyzed the pros and cons of the impugned policy before formulating it and the policy has been adopted not just keeping the short-term benefit of the State but also guarding the long-term growth of the sugar sector and the economy of the State”. “Due to low sugarcane crushing capacity of these mills, farmers were forced to sell their sugarcane to khandsari/gur industry at considerably low price. Resultantly, while on the one hand, the farmers are not able to get adequate price for their produce, on the other hand, contribution to the programme for development of the rural areas and welfare of common people is mostly negligible.” “Keeping in view the widely anticipated increase in demand for sugar in the years to come, it is imperative that the major sugar producing States in the country take all steps to improve productivity in the existing units, as well as promote and encourage further capital investments in this sector. Uttar Pradesh, in lieu of its leading position and potential in this sector would have to play an important role if the country’s sugar needs are continued to be met in future.” “State of U.P. being the major contributor of sugar/sugarcane production in the country’s total sugarcane production, has an added responsibility as Maharashtra has already achieved optimum area under cane cultivation whereas U.P. still has lots of potential to bring new area under sugarcane cultivation and to enhance productivity of the existing area under cultivation by improving upon development activities mainly infrastructural development, bridges, culverts, provision of better seeds, better remuneration to farmers etc. The background in which the said Sugar Industry Promotion Policy-2004 hereinafter referred to as the “SIPP” has been announced and its salient features are important and the same provide enough justification for the said policy. The SIPP provides for various incentives to sugar company/unit, which undertakes investment of Rs. 350 crores or more of new units and/or expansion of existing units and also on setting up of ancillary industries like Co-generation of Power and Distillery etc. The incentives are available to any person without any discrimination provided the requisite investment is made.” “In short, the SIPP aims to gear up investment climate in U.P. and to provide a fillup to Sugar Industry in the State, which in turn will contribute to growth of rural economy and generate employment in the State.” “It is submitted that this Policy has been overwhelmingly welcomed by the entrepreneurs inter alia by Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., Balrampur Chini, Trivedi Engineering, DSM Group, DSCL, Dalmiya Group, Uttam Group, Rana Group, Simbhaoli Group, DCM Shriram, and Dwarikesh Group, adding about 1,85,00 TCD of fresh capacities translating into nearly an additional 17 lac tons of Sugar in the State, which increase is necessary in view of the increase in demand of sugar, and as a result thereof, about 10 new plants have already been commissioned and 18 are in pipeline alongwith capacity expansion, Co-generation and Ethanol Units, involving an investment of about Rs. 5,000 crores in the State. The incentives/exemptions can be claimed by the units from the date of eligibility or the commencement of the commercial production/whichever is later.” “When policy was made, no sugar factory had made the investment envisaged by the ‘Policy’ while now already 10 new sugar factories have been set up and 18 sugar mills are under construction. 5,000 crores in the State. The incentives/exemptions can be claimed by the units from the date of eligibility or the commencement of the commercial production/whichever is later.” “When policy was made, no sugar factory had made the investment envisaged by the ‘Policy’ while now already 10 new sugar factories have been set up and 18 sugar mills are under construction. This has been possible only on account of Policy in incentives, otherwise since 1998, even after delicensing only one or two sugar mills were set up in U.P.” “Moreover, after amendment of Policy on 17 December 2004 (pg. 153 Writ Petition), it is clear that the total amount of rebate/remissions shall not exceed the total investment made during the period for which the benefit is granted. Therefore, rebate/remissions are meant only to help recoup the investment.” “Thus with the aid of the Policy, the State Government would derive more revenue from the down-stream industry and there would be substantial economic development. The Policy must be considered from the macro view point and the micro analysis approach of the petitioner is fallacious. “The classification between old and new investment is valid enforcing incentive scheme for attracting capital.” 9. State Government then filed counter-affidavit in Petitioner-Sugar Company’s writ petition No. 6978 (MB) of 2008 in which it defended its decision to scrap SIPP, 2004 mainly on the following two grounds: “(a) Unhealthy competition on availing and non availing units—The Respondent State has contended that SIPP, 2004, allegedly discriminated between Sugar Companies who were eligible for the benefits of the Policy and those Companies who had already setup industries and were hence, outside the purview of the Policy. According to the Respondent State, this Policy, thus, discriminated between two sets of Sugar mills. (b) Supervening public interest as State Exchequer will be burdened by Rs. 3500 crores if incentives were given to the availing units. The Respondent State has contended that if the benefits of SIPP 2004 are disbursed to the eligible units, it would put an additional burden of Rs. 3500 crores on the Respondent State.” 10. It is then pleaded that State is blowing hot and cold inasmuch on the one hand it has scrapped SIPP, 2004 being in the interest of State and Cane growers while in the subsequent matter wherein the decision of scrapping SIPP, 2004 was challenged it has taken a contrary stand. 11. 3500 crores on the Respondent State.” 10. It is then pleaded that State is blowing hot and cold inasmuch on the one hand it has scrapped SIPP, 2004 being in the interest of State and Cane growers while in the subsequent matter wherein the decision of scrapping SIPP, 2004 was challenged it has taken a contrary stand. 11. One M/s. L.H. Sugar who had set up its units before induction of SIPP, 2004 sought its implementation in Writ Petition No. 8856 (MB) of 2009 but it was rejected by this Court (Lucknow Bench) by order dated 17.7.2012 observing that M/s. L.H. Sugar has no locus to support scrapping of SIPP, 2004. Matter was taken in Civil Appeal No. 6999 of 2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 36891 of 2012) before Supreme Court. The Court allowing appeal vide judgment dated 14.8.2013, set aside this Court (Lucknow Bench)’s order dated 17.7.2012 and permitted alleged Sugar Company to intervene in all pending writ petitions before Lucknow Bench. 12. The aforesaid matters are still pending, but now State Government has declared a new policy, namely, Sugar Industries Co-Generation and Distillery Promotion Policy, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “SIPP, 2013”) vide Government Order dated 28.1.2013. It is said that SIPP, 2013 with slight modification is nothing but an extension of SIPP, 2004. A comparative chart prepared by petitioners, filed as Annexure-18 to the writ petition, broadly reads as under: S. No. Basis Sugar Promotion Policy 2004 Sugar Promotion Policy 2013 1 Purpose To increase drawl from 41.04% (average of 5 years ending 03-04 to 48.85% (in 2010-11) To increase drawl from 57% to 70% 2 Basis Purpose To achieve sugar production and sugar cane production target of 276.2 lacs ton and 4085.9 lacs ton respectively in 20-11 To establish sugar mills in eastern U.P. and some other areas To increase the State’s share in country’s sugar production from 28.06% (02-03) to 30% in 2010-11 Increase existing Sugar, Co-generation capacity and distillery capacity of the state To provide sugar farmers better price for their products Rural development Benefit to large No. of farmers. Increase in Government revenue Rural development Overall Economic Development 3 Area covered Whole Uttar Pradesh Specified districts of Uttar Pradesh 4 Eligibility conditions Capital Investment of Rs. 350/500 crores Setting up Sugar, co gen and distillery plant or expansion in existing capacities. Increase in Government revenue Rural development Overall Economic Development 3 Area covered Whole Uttar Pradesh Specified districts of Uttar Pradesh 4 Eligibility conditions Capital Investment of Rs. 350/500 crores Setting up Sugar, co gen and distillery plant or expansion in existing capacities. Employment to 1000 peoples 100% payment of cane dues 5 Validity period Commercial production must be started by 31.3.2007 which was subsequently stretched to 31.3.2008 Commercial production must be started within 3 years from the date of announcement of policy. For cogen or distillery or both, the time frame is for 2 years 6 Period of benefit 5 years in case Capital investment is between 350 crores to 500 crores and 10 years if Capital Investment exceeds to Rs. 500 crores 5 years 7 Benefits ceiling Maximum to investment Maximum to 75 crores per unit 8 Benefits 1. Exemption of entry tax from sugar 1. Exemption from reservation of molasses to country liquor 2. Reimbursement of the administrative charges on molasses 2. Exemption of the administrative charges on molasses 3. Trade Tax exemption on molasses 3. VAT/CST deposited on molasses or 10% of sales revenue (whichever is less) will be available as interest free loan for 5 years 4. Exemption of stamp duty and fee on registration of land 4. Exemption of stamp duty and fee on registration of land 5. Reimbursement of transport subsidy on sugar 6. Reimbursement of exemption of the purchase tax on cane 5. Reimbursement of exemption of the purchase tax on cane 7. Reimbursement of society commission 6. Exemption of 75% society commission 8. Reimbursement of transport subsidy (Cane) 9. 10% capital subsidy 7 Reimbursement of 5% of the interest payable 13. It is this policy which has been challenged on the ground that it is patently arbitrary, has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and once for certain reasons SIPP, 2004 has been scrapped, overlooking the reasons which prevailed upon the Government to scrap SIPP, 2004, it has again promulgated SIPP, 2013 hence it is discriminatory as also violative of Article 14 and 19 (1)(g) of Constitution. It has resulted in inequitable, unhealthy competition between existing and new units and shows a hostile discrimination to the existing units which have already been set up with heavy financial burden of loan etc. It has resulted in inequitable, unhealthy competition between existing and new units and shows a hostile discrimination to the existing units which have already been set up with heavy financial burden of loan etc. as they would find it difficult to compete with the new units which are to be given benefits, exemptions and remissions etc. in SIPP, 2013. State has no authority to cause loss to public exchequer by offering incentives, concessions etc. in the garb of attracting new Industrial Establishments, particularly when earlier policy was scrapped by State Government itself for the reason that such concessions etc. were causing loss to public exchequer but now ignoring the same reasons, new Policy has been framed which shows total non application of mind and arbitrariness on the part of State. 14. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit challenging locus standi of petitioners to challenge SIPP, 2013 which has been promulgated in larger public interest in the light of new Infrastructure and Industrial Investment Policy 2012 with a view to provide a holistic guiding policy for all departments relating to Industrialization such as Food Processing, Information Technology, Sugar, Micro and Small Industries etc. It is said that the aforesaid policy has been finalized after a detailed consultation with all stakeholders as also Industrial Associations and Entrepreneurs and all concerned Government Departments. Industrial policies of neighbouring States of U.P. like Uttarakhand, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and some other industrial progressive States like Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka have been thoroughly studied and main features of those policies have been included in the new policy. No fundamental, legal or statutory right of petitioners are being affected nor any prejudice has been caused to them by SIPP, 2013. Petitioners have not placed any document on record to show that they are share holders and how their share value is being affected. The writ petition is barred by laches inasmuch Policy was declared in 2013 while present writ petition has been filed in 2015. Petitioner is already pursuing writ petition at Lucknow Bench inasmuch petitioner No. 2 Manoj Kumar Agarwal has jointly filed Writ Petition No. 6978 (M/B) of 2008 alongwith Sugar Company M/s. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Limited at Lucknow Bench challenging withdrawal of SIPP, 2004 and the same is still pending. The present writ petition is nothing but a proxy petition on behalf of Sugar-Company and an abuse of process of law. 15. The present writ petition is nothing but a proxy petition on behalf of Sugar-Company and an abuse of process of law. 15. Coming to the merits of new policy, i.e., SIPP, 2013, it is said that it has been formulated with an object to attain target of 11.2 percent industrial growth in U.P. To achieve this goal, alongwith financial subsidies and exemptions, strategy for improving industrial environment and infrastructure, capacity and skill development provisions have been included in the Policy. 100 per cent exemption in Stamp duty will be available to Industrial Units set up in Poorvanchal, Madhyanchal and Bundelkhand. 100 per cent exemption will also be given in infrastructure facilities, like roads, power, wholesale, transshipment, centres, warehousing, cold storage, etc. as well as information Technology, Biotech, Agro-processing units. Industrial Estates being developed by private sector will also get reimbursement of 25 per cent in Stamp Duty. Iron and steel will be exempted from Entry Tax. Maximum kind of raw and packaging materials will be enlisted and expanded for a tax liability of only 4 per cent. Eligibility criteria for new industrial units to avail incentives under ongoing Investment Promotion Scheme has been brought down from Rs. 10 crore to Rs. 5 crore for Poorvanchal, Madhyanchal and Bundelkhand, which has been reduced to Rs. 12.5 crore from 25 crore for rest of the State. Interest free loan equivalent to VAT and Central Sales Tax paid by industrial units will be provided for a period of 10 years. Various other aspects in respect of SIPP, 2013 highlighted by respondents in the counter-affidavit in paras 6 and 7 are as under: “6. That taking into consideration the need of the new sugar mills cogen units and distilleries and proper utilization of the sugarcane stake Government has framed the Sugar Industry, Co-general and Distillery Promotion Policy, 2013. It is submitted that under the 2013 Policy, Rs. 3048.87 crore is likely to be invested by the entrepreneurs. Extract of the policy is as under: Sugar Industry, Co-generation and Distillery Promotion Policy, 2013 Introduction: Spread over an area of 2.43 lakh sq. km. and with a population aggregating 20 crore, Uttar Pradesh is one of the largest and most populous state of the country. It is also the principal sugarcane producer in the country in which sugarcane cultivation and sugar industry is the single largest contributor to the economy and industrial development of the state. km. and with a population aggregating 20 crore, Uttar Pradesh is one of the largest and most populous state of the country. It is also the principal sugarcane producer in the country in which sugarcane cultivation and sugar industry is the single largest contributor to the economy and industrial development of the state. With a predominantly rural economy, which is now becoming increasingly surplus, the state is also a major consumer market. Sugarcane being the major cash crop, it is an important source of livelihood and income for the farmers. Numerous industries based on sugar and its bye products provide opportunities of livelihood to a large multitude of people in the state. Out of India’s total sugarcane area of 49.44 lakh hectares, Uttar Pradesh accounts for more than 21.25 lakh hectares (about 43 percent). The state’s sugarcane productivity as well as sugar production is less than the national average. The average sugarcane productivity in the state was 59.34 tons per hectare in 2011-12. Several schemes launched by the Sugarcane Development Department of the State are under implementation to augment the average yield of sugarcane. This is expected to increase to 70 tons per hectare. During the season 2011-12, there were 124 operating sugar mills in the state (Cooperative Sector 23+Private Sector 101). The total crushing capacity of these sugar mills is 7.67 lakh T.C.D. During the season 2011-12, the sugar mills crushed 767.35 lakh tons of sugarcane to produce 69.58 lakh tons of sugar. Need For New Sugar Mills At present, most of the sugar cane-producing districts in the state have sufficient number of sugar mills, which ensure that the sugarcane produced is adequately procured. However, there is a need of sugar mills in some of the districts. In eastern Uttar Pradesh and some other areas for example, a number of mills have shut down or have low and uneconomic crushing capacities. Even though there exists excellent potential for sugarcane cultivation, farmers have been discouraged from sugarcane cultivation due to absence of sugar mills. On account of the above and other factors, the districts where there is a strong potential for setting up of new mills have been identified. Even though there exists excellent potential for sugarcane cultivation, farmers have been discouraged from sugarcane cultivation due to absence of sugar mills. On account of the above and other factors, the districts where there is a strong potential for setting up of new mills have been identified. There are: (1) Deoria, (2) Mau, (3) Azamgarh, (4) Jaunpur, (5) Amethi, (6) Rae Bareli, (7) Budaun, (8) Ghazipur, (9) Ballia, (10) Gorakhpur, (11) Siddhrathnagar, (12) Etah, (13) Etawah, (14) Kannauj, (15) Mainpuri, (16) Farrukhabad,(17) Firozabad, (18) Banda, (19) Chitrakoot, (20) Hamirpur, (21) Mahoba, (22) Jhansi, (23) Jalaun and (24) Lalitpur. The establishment of new sugar mills in these districts will provide green field areas for the new mills with sufficient cane areas as well as benefit to large number of farmers with the creation of growth centres in the hinterland. Apart from these districts, if a new sugar mill to be established under the policy in any other district prior permission of the State Government would be necessary. The drawal of sugarcane by the sugar mills in the state is 57 percent i.e., 57 percent of the total sugarcane production goes to the mills, while the balance is being utilized by other traditional small scale industries like crushers, kolhus etc. In the last 6 years, the drawal has gone up from 47 percent to 57 percent, mainly because the farmers now prefer to sell sugarcane to the new sugar mills that have been set up on account of higher rates of sugarcane and prompt payment by sugar mills. The drawal by sugar mills is likely to go up to 70 percent, which would result in greater availability of sugarcane to the sugar mills. The annual consumption of sugar in the country is 22 million tons as against production of 25 million tons. In the present scenario, the production of sugar in the country exceeds the domestic demand. However, with the rising trend of consumption, it is likely that availability of sugar against demand in the domestic market would become substantially constrained. In view of this, the establishment of new mills in the state is necessary and required. Sugar mills have adopted programmes in their respective areas for the development of sugarcane cultivation and establishment of new sugar mills will accelerate the progress of various sugar cane development schemes in the state. In view of this, the establishment of new mills in the state is necessary and required. Sugar mills have adopted programmes in their respective areas for the development of sugarcane cultivation and establishment of new sugar mills will accelerate the progress of various sugar cane development schemes in the state. A large percentage of sugarcane is consumed by the gur and khandsari industries in the state. If new sugar mills came up in the state, there would be no adverse impact on the gur and khandsari industries because the increased productivity of sugarcane resulting from various development programmes would be sufficient to meet the requirement of new sugar mills also. Need for Co-generation Units The installed capacity of power generation by the sugar mills in the country is 3,090 MW, out of which the installed capacity of the 58 sugar mills (with installed co-gen. units) in the state is 1,254 MW. Nearly 800 MW of electricity is being supplied to the state electricity grid by these co-generation units. By the setting up of new co-generation plants in the existing sugar mills, an additional 750 MW of power could be generated. In view of the pressing need for energy in the state, it is imperative to establish these co-generation plants for 750 MW of additional electricity. Besides, co-generation plants in sugar mills add to the overall profitability of the mills. Need for Distilleries There are 61 distilleries in the state with a total capacity of 135.06 crore litres per year. The sugarcane productivity in the state which is at present 59.34 tons per hectare is expected to increase to 70 tons per hectare. There will also be an increase in the recovery of sugar. Consequently, the production of molasses will register a sharp rise. With a higher production of molasses, there would be a great potential for setting up of new distilleries. Production of ethanol and alcohol would not only improve the profitability of sugar mills, but also strengthen the programme of ethanol blending with petrol. At present, an amount of more than Rupees 18,000 crores flows into the rural economy in the form of payments for sugarcane. The establishment of new sugar mills will further enhance the cash flow and improve the economic condition of the farmers. The Government is committed to strengthen the rural economy. At present, an amount of more than Rupees 18,000 crores flows into the rural economy in the form of payments for sugarcane. The establishment of new sugar mills will further enhance the cash flow and improve the economic condition of the farmers. The Government is committed to strengthen the rural economy. This can only be done by strengthening the sugar industry so that they serve adequately the interest of the farmers in terms of payment of cane price and development of the area concerned. The new Sugar Industry, Co-generation and Distillery Promotion Policy 2013 is being launched to attract private capital for setting up of new sugar mills, co-generation plants and distilleries in the state. 7. That with certain terms & conditions following Concessions and Exemptions is being provided in the policy. Concessions and Exemptions As per the new policy, in the event of establishment of new sugar mills, expansion of the capacity of existing sugar mills, setting up of co-generation plants and distilleries, the unit/company will be allowed the following exemptions and concessions for a maximum period of five years : 1- On establishing a new sugar mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. Exemption from purchase tax on sugarcane. iii. Exemption from reservation of molasses for country liquor. iv. From the date of the first sale of molasses, an amount equivalent to the VAT deposited over five years alongwith the Central Sales Tax or 10 percent of the annual sales revenue whichever is less will be provided as interest-free loan payable after five years from the date of distribution of the loan. v. Exemption from administrative charge on molasses. vi. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee. vii. Re-imbursement of society commission to the extent of 75 percent. 2- On installing Co-generation plant in an existing Sugar Mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for installing co-generation equipment. 3- On setting up a Distillery in an existing Sugar Mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for installing co-generation equipment. 3- On setting up a Distillery in an existing Sugar Mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. From the date of the first purchase of molasses, an amount equivalent to the VAT paid on molasses over five years alongwith the Central Sales Tax or 10 percent of the annual purchase amount, whichever is less, will be provided as interest-free loan payable after five years from the date of disbursement of the loan. iii. Exemption from administrative charge on molasses. iv. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for selling up a distillery. 4- On setting up of a Distillery and Co-Generation unit in an existing Sugar Mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. From the date of the first purchase of molasses, an amount equivalent to the VAT paid over five years alongwith the Central Sales Tax or 10 percent of the annual purchase amount, whichever is less, will be provided as interest-free loan payable after five years from the date of disbursement of the loan. iii. Exemption from administrative charge on molasses. iv. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for setting up the distillery and/or co-generation unit. 5- On capacity-expansion of an existing Sugar Mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. Exemption from cane-purchase tax on expanded capacity. iii. From the date of the first sale of molasses, on account of capacity-expansion, an amount equivalent to the VAT deposited over five years alongwith the Central Sales Tax or 10 percent of the annual sale revenue of expanded capacity, whichever is less, will be provided as interest-free loan payable after five years from the date of distribution of the loan. iv. Exemption from administrative charge on molasses on the expanded capacity. v. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for capacity expansion. viii. iv. Exemption from administrative charge on molasses on the expanded capacity. v. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for capacity expansion. viii. Re-imbursement of society commission on expanded capacity to the extent of 75 percent. 6- On capacity expansion of an existing Co-Generation unit i. Re-imbursement of five percent interest, payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for capacity-expansion of the co-generation unit. 7- On capacity expansion of an existing Distillery in Sugar Mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest, payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. From the date of the first purchase of additional molasses, on account of capacity-expansion of the distillery, an amount equivalent to the additional VAT paid/deposited over five years alongwith the Central Sales Tax or 10 percent of the additional annual purchase amount, whichever is less, will be provided as interest-free loan payable after five years from the date of disbursement of the loan. iii. Exemption from administrative charge on the additional consumption of molasses due to capacity expansion. iv. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased on account of capacity expansion of the distillery. 8- On capacity-expansion of existing Distillery and Co-Generation units in Sugar Mill i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. From the date of the first purchase of additional molasses, on account of capacity-expansion of the distillery, an amount equivalent to the additional VAT paid over five years alongwith the Central Sales Tax or 10 percent of the annual purchase amount, whichever is less, will be provided as interest-free loan payable after five years from the date of disbursement of the loan. iii. Exemption from administrative charge on the additional consumption of molasses on the expanded capacity. iv. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for the purpose of capacity expansion of distillery and co-generation units. iii. Exemption from administrative charge on the additional consumption of molasses on the expanded capacity. iv. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee if additional land is purchased for the purpose of capacity expansion of distillery and co-generation units. 9- On establishing a new Sugar Mill, Distillery and Co-Generation unit i. Re-imbursement at the rate of five percent on the interest payable on the loans obtained from banks/financial institutions/SDF on account of plant and machinery. ii. Exemption from purchase tax on sugarcane. iii. Exemption from reservation of molasses for country liquor. iv. From the date of the first purchase/sale of molasses, an amount equivalent to the VAT paid/deposited over five years alongwith the Central Sales Tax or 10 percent of the annual purchase/sale revenue, whichever is less, will be provided as interest-free loan payable after five years from the date of disbursement of the loan. v. Exemption from administrative charge on molasses. vi. Exemption from stamp duty and land registration fee. ix. Re-imbursement of society commission to the extent of 75 percent. The above mentioned concessions and exemptions will be subject to the following conditions : i. While new sugar mills shall be established in the districts as identified above, Co-generation plants and Distilleries may be set up in already existing units. ii. For establishing a sugar mill, commercial production must commence in the unit/company concerned within three years of the announcement of the Promotion Policy. In the event of setting up of a co-generation unit or distillery or both, commercial production shall be started by the unit/company within two years of the commencement of the Policy. iii. Re-imbursement of amount paid as interest on the loan obtained from SDF on account of plant and machinery shall not exceed the amount of interest payable to SDF. iv. To determine the level of capacity expansion, the maximum production recorded in any single year during the last five years or 80 percent of the installed capacity whichever is higher will be treated as production base. Any expansion above this base only will be regarded as capacity expansion. v. The company/unit must have made full and timely payment of the cane price of sugarcane to the farmers. vi. Concessions and exemptions granted over a period of five years shall not exceed the value of Rs. 75 crore per unit. Any expansion above this base only will be regarded as capacity expansion. v. The company/unit must have made full and timely payment of the cane price of sugarcane to the farmers. vi. Concessions and exemptions granted over a period of five years shall not exceed the value of Rs. 75 crore per unit. Concessions and exemptions obtained by a company/unit by providing wrong information/documents shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.” 16. Relying on the authorities of Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.L. Dutta, (1991) 1 SCC 505 , M/s. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttranchal and others, 2007 (8) SCC 418 , Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, (1972) 2 SCC 788 , State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shiksha Sanstha, (1971) 2 SCC 410 , R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 , Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223 , Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration, (2001) 3 SCC 635 and Balco Employees Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 , it has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that an industrial Policy formulated by Government is not to be interfered by Courts if in their view another policy would have been better since decision in this regard is basically in the realm of Executive and unless it is shown that policy is per se arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to Statute, Courts ordinarily must not interfere. 17. We have heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal, Advocate, for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record as also the relevant authorities in the matter. 18. We may observe that on the one hand petitioners justify SIPP, 2004 though as per their own stand the said Policy also resulted in creating two classes, i.e., existing units, and, new units which will be given concessions etc. under SIPP, 2004 and according to them that policy was justified and valid and decision of scrapping the same is bad but they are challenging SIPP, 2013 on the ground that concessions etc. if are given to new units, will create a tough competition for existing units and, therefore, the scheme is bad. For SIPP, 2013 petitioner’s company is an existing unit. This shows double standard on the part of petitioners themselves. if are given to new units, will create a tough competition for existing units and, therefore, the scheme is bad. For SIPP, 2013 petitioner’s company is an existing unit. This shows double standard on the part of petitioners themselves. In our view, it also shows that their conduct in approaching this Court through this writ petition is not clean and here is a case where petitioners though have invoked equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 but themselves have not done equity in the same matter. Therefore, for this reason alone, petitioners are liable to be non suited. 19. Now coming to the merits of the matter, we are aware of well established judicial norm that whenever an industrial policy is challenged, scope of judicial review is very limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over the decision taken by Executives in formulating an industrial policy. In M/s. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. (supra), Court said that in absence of illegality or violation of law, a Court of law will not interfere in the policy matters. 20. In the present case, we may notice that petitioners have not argued that any statutory provision in the matter of procedure or otherwise has been violated by State Government while promulgating SIPP, 2013. Therefore, policy in question is not under challenge on the ground of violation of any statute. The real contention is that petitioners’ unit as well as other already existing units are likely to face a very tough competition with new units due to the exemptions and concessions etc. offered to new units under SIPP, 2013 and therefore same is arbitrary. This argument ignores the fact that a new unit, whenever established, itself faces a lot of commercial difficulties and there are several teething troubles which are not faced by existing units since they have already established their business, sale of production and other things have settled down for them in comparison to new Units. A new Unit in order to get stability in business takes certain time. If State finds that for helping new Entrepreneurs to set up new units for Industrial Development in the State for creating more employment avenues and keeping an eye on prospective advantage to public exchequer etc., certain benefits must be given, per se it cannot be said that such Policy decision is arbitrary inasmuch existing Units and new Units constitute two different classes for this purpose. There is a reasonable and intelligible distinction between the two which has well nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 21. The new Industrial Policy, i.e. SIPP, 2013 clearly states that most of the sugar cane-producing districts in the state have sufficient number of sugar mills, which ensure that the sugarcane product is adequately procured. However, in some Districts, mostly in eastern part of State, a number of mills have shut down or have low and uneconomic crushing capacities. There existed excellent potential for sugarcane cultivation but farmers are discouraged from sugarcane cultivation due to absence of sugar mills. Such districts identified by State Government for setting up new mills are Deoria, Mau, Azamgarh, Jaunpur, Amethi etc. which are 24 in numbers in Bundelkhand and Eastern U.P. It also includes some District of central north part of U.P. like Mainpuri, Etawah, Farrukhabad, Etah, Kannauj. It is also evident from the said policy that apart from 24 Districts identified, if a new Sugar Mill is to be established in any other District, prior permission of State Government would be necessary. Meaning thereby establishment of New Sugar Industries in any other District is a little bit difficult while encouragement is for establishment of new Sugar Mills in the aforesaid 24 Districts. The aforesaid Sugar Mills having co-generation units would also be beneficial for requirement of power in the State of U.P. State plan to have 750 Mega Watt of such power from co-generation units installed by new Sugar Units. State also gave some incentives for expansion of capacity to existing units or for setting up co-generation plants and distillery. Thus for multifarious benefits for the State at large, SIPP, 2013 has been issued and for attracting new Entrepreneurs to establish new Units or existing Units for expansion of their capacity etc. various benefits/concessions have been promised in the said policy. Apparently, there is a marked distinction and reasonable classification made by State in respect of new Units and existing units and there is a well defined and identified objective for the same which is in public interest, public welfare and larger interest of all round development of State. 22. various benefits/concessions have been promised in the said policy. Apparently, there is a marked distinction and reasonable classification made by State in respect of new Units and existing units and there is a well defined and identified objective for the same which is in public interest, public welfare and larger interest of all round development of State. 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners could not show that ex facie these concessions violate any provision of law but submits that since concessions/exemptions, allowed to new Units or those going for expansion, may create some negative business impact on existing units, therefore, the aforesaid policy is arbitrary. 23. An adverse effect on business activities of different Unit per se cannot render a Policy decision taken by State arbitrary and for this purpose Court has to apply a twin test, namely, whether there is a intelligible differentia and it has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This twin test was recognised in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others, AIR 1958 SC 538 and has been followed till date. 24. In Shashikant Laxman Kale and another v. Union of India and another, (1990) 4 SCC 366 , validity of an exemption/concession of Income Tax Act,1961 came up for consideration before Court. It observed that it is first necessary to discern the true purpose or object of the impugned enactment because it is only with reference to the true object of the enactment that the existence of a rational nexus of the differentia on which classification is based, with the object sought to be achieved by the enactment, can be examined to test the validity of classification. Distinction between legislative intention and the purpose or object of legislation was summarised with reference to Francis Bennion’s Statutory Interpretation, 1984 edition, as under: “The distinction between the purpose or object of an enactment and the legislative intention governing it is that the former relates to the mischief to which the enactment is directed and its remedy, while the latter relates to the legal meaning of the enactment.” 25. Thus, the purpose or object of legislation is to provide a remedy for the malady, legislative intention relates to the meaning or exposition of the remedy as enacted. Thus, the purpose or object of legislation is to provide a remedy for the malady, legislative intention relates to the meaning or exposition of the remedy as enacted. While dealing with the validity of a classification, rational nexus of the differentia on which classification is based has to exist with the purpose or object of the legislation so determined. Primary onus lay upon the person who challenges a legislation as arbitrary but once it is shown that a particular piece of legislation on its face is discriminatory or arbitrary, onus shifts on State to show that there exists a rational nexus between the differentia and the object sought to be achieved. When State has power to tax, it has also power to grant exemption. Power of exemption is derived from legislative enactment by State Legislature. Wherever exemptions are granted, normally Statute so provide with eye on legislative policy. Explaining word “exemption”, in Union of India v. Wood Papers Limited, (1990) 4 SCC 256 , Court said: “Literally exemption is freedom from liability, tax or duty. Fiscally it may assume varying shapes, specially in a growing economy. For instance tax holiday to new units, concessional rate of tax to goods or persons for limited period or with the specific objective etc. That is why its construction, unlike charging provision, has to be tested on different touchstone. In fact an exemption provision is like an exception and on normal principle of construction or interpretation of statutes it is construed strictly either because of legislative intention or on economic justification of inequitable burden or progressive approach of fiscal provisions intended to augment state revenue.” (emphasis added) 26. Provisions for granting exemptions have been held valid in a catena of decisions and this exposition of law is also not disputed even by learned Senior Counsel. It is now well-settled that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. The twin test, however, it must pass. The twin test of permissible classification, as we have already said, is, (i) classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 27. In Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. 27. In Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India and another, (2008) 5 SCC 287 , Court has referred to various principles laid down in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others (supra) as under: “(a) that a law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if, on account of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that single individual may be treated as a class by himself; (b) that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles ; (c) that it must be presume that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its laws are directed to problems made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds; (d) that the legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest; (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation; and (f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are to be resumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the Court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation.” 28. The above principles have been followed and reiterated in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2016) 3 SCC 183. 29. The above principles have been followed and reiterated in Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2016) 3 SCC 183. 29. We may notice at this stage that in the present case, petitioners themselves have sought to avail benefit of exemptions under SIPP, 2004 to some extent but since for the purpose of SIPP, 2013 it is now an existing industry, it has come to challenge exemptions/concessions sought to be extended by State Government for attracting new Entrepreneurs to establish sugar industries in certain identified areas which are industrially not developed like Eastern U.P., Bundelkhand etc. When an industrial policy is framed with an object to augment industrial development by offering certain concessions/exemptions etc, it has been held that Court shall not interfere unless the said policy is shown to be in violation of law. In M/s. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttranchal and others (supra), in para 48 of judgment, Court said: “48. In our judgment, it is well-settled that public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing policies. No doubt, the discretion is not absolute, unqualified, unfettered or uncanalised and judiciary has control over all executive actions. At the same time, however, it is 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 tilts. There are no objective, justiciable or manageable standards to judge the issues nor such questions can be decided on ‘a priori’ considerations.” 30. Again in para 61 Court said: “61. The State and its instrumentality has also power to change policy. The executive power is not limited to frame a particular policy. It has untrammeled power to change, rechange, adjust and readjust the policy taking into account the relevant and germane considerations. It is entirely in the discretion of the Government how a policy should be shaped. It should not, however, be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.” 31. In Col. Sangwan v. Union of India (supra), Court has said, a policy once formulated is not good for ever. It is entirely in the discretion of the Government how a policy should be shaped. It should not, however, be arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.” 31. In Col. Sangwan v. Union of India (supra), Court has said, a policy once formulated is not good for ever. It is within the competence of Union of India to change it, rechange it, adjust it and re-adjust it according to the compulsions of circumstances and the imperatives of national considerations. 32. In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, (1981) 4 SCC 675 , Court said: “The Court must always remember that legislation is directed to practical problems, that the economic mechanism is highly sensitive and complex, that many problems are singular and contingent, that laws are not abstract propositions and do not relate to abstract units and are not to be measured by abstract symmetry, that exact wisdom and nice adoption of remedy are not always possible and that judgment is largely a prophecy based on meager and uninterrupted experience. Every legislation particularly in economic matters is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and therefore it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses. There, may be crudities and inequities in complicated experimental economic legislation but on that account alone it cannot be struck down as invalid.” (emphasis added) 33. We do not find any reason to burden this judgment with reference to catena of decisions on the subject since basic propositions, as discussed above, are common in all those authorities and when we look into the facts of the present case and examine SIPP, 2013 in the light of above propositions, it cannot be doubted that Sugar Policy adopted is not per se contrary to any statutory provision. The exemptions relating to tax etc. could have been granted only by making necessary amendment in the relevant taxing statute and vesting of such power with the Legislature is not disputed. The concessions/exemptions granted to new Entrepreneurs or the existing units which will go for expansion have a valid and public welfare object in the larger public interest and development of the State. could have been granted only by making necessary amendment in the relevant taxing statute and vesting of such power with the Legislature is not disputed. The concessions/exemptions granted to new Entrepreneurs or the existing units which will go for expansion have a valid and public welfare object in the larger public interest and development of the State. There is an intelligible classification between industries already well-settled and industries which are yet to come up and to settle after facing initial teething troubles etc.; and, object to encourage setting up new industries for industrial development in the identified Districts, which are lacking such industrial development, is a valid object sought to be achieved and has nexus with the intelligible classification and the Policy formulated by State. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid policy and are unable to agree with learned Senior Counsel’s submission that policy in question is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 34. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.