JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. State being aggrieved by the final order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 4.4.2017 in W.P(C).No.22289 of 2016 has filed this appeal. 2. We have heard learned senior Government Pleader for the State and the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner/first respondent and with their consent, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself. 3. It appears that the first respondent is a duly registered small scale industry with the Industries Department of the Government of Kerala. The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, a central Government undertaking, issued certain incentive guidelines for the micro, small and medium enterprises. Various schemes and rules have been issued, which has been accepted by the State Government as well. One of the incentives as contained in Public Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises Order, 2012 was as contained in Clause 6, which is quoted below: "6. Price quotation in tenders.-(1) In tender, participating Micro and Small Enterprises quoting price within price band of L1+15 per cent shall also be allowed to supply a portion of requirement by bringing down their price to L1 price in a situation where L1 price is from someone other than a Micro and Small Enterprises and such Micro and Small Enterprises shall be allowed to supply up to 20 percent of total tendered value." These are schemes to give incentives to small, medium and Micro industry. Other incentives include exemption from payment of earnest money deposit, waiver of security deposit and issuance of tender sets free of cost. 4. It appears that an e-tender was issued by the State for painting and maintenance of an Engineering College Hostel. The writ petitioner applied and gave his bid. It was an e-tender and his tender was rejected at the threshold for non remittance of tender fee and earnest money deposit. He was thus deprived of even applying much less consideration of his bid. Aggrieved by the above, he represented before the authorities but it was of no avail. Someone else was awarded the tender. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was filed stating that he was ready to do the work, though at a higher price but within the range of 15% from the accepted tenderer. That was not accepted as per the statement filed in this Court, in response to the said averment. 5. Someone else was awarded the tender. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was filed stating that he was ready to do the work, though at a higher price but within the range of 15% from the accepted tenderer. That was not accepted as per the statement filed in this Court, in response to the said averment. 5. Learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, directed the State to consider the bid of the writ petitioner within a period of one month. Let it be noted that tenders were not finalised by the Government awaiting decision of this Court. Another ground that was taken before the learned Single Judge was that the circulars and Scheme related to purchase of goods where as the tender in question was for purchase of services. 6. Before us, in this intra court appeal, on behalf of the State it is submitted that the State is required to issue e-tender and in e-tender, if a mandatory field is not filled up, it will not accept the tender. The deposit of EMD is a mandatory field and therefore, once his tender was rejected, he had no right. Anyhow, upon the averments made in the writ petition and upon detailed calculation, the price difference between L1 and the writ petitioner was slightly more than 15% and as such he could not be selected and the learned Single Judge ought not have entertain the writ petition. 7. We have considered the matter. So far as e-tender is concerned, the stand of the State cannot be accepted. Extender is nothing but a tender electronically filed. For the tender to be electronically filed, the program/software is to be developed by the State. Keeping in view the statutory schemes of incentive, the programs have to be modified so that people having valid registrations as a small scale or a micro and other such units, are conferred the benefit to which they are entitled. Having failed to draw a correct program the State cannot turn around and say that we have defaulted in preparing a correct program and because of that your right is lost. This is so far as the first issue is concerned. 8. With regard to the second contention, we have to keep in mind that the incentive schemes are by nature of things, schemes to give incentive to the small units. This is so far as the first issue is concerned. 8. With regard to the second contention, we have to keep in mind that the incentive schemes are by nature of things, schemes to give incentive to the small units. It is a beneficial legislation and has to be understood and implemented consistent with the object of grant of incentive rather than find excuses to deny incentives. Thus, the whole attitude of the State has to change when it comes to eligible industries. Trying to find an excuse to eliminate them from competition is contrary to the scheme. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge on this count. 9. Before parting, we may also notice one thing. An objection was taken that the scheme is in relation to purchase of goods and not services. It must be borne in mind that object of the scheme is to provide incentives to deserving units. Exhibit P3 policy would reveal preferential policies was in respect of procurement of goods and services. The stand of the appellant in the counter appears to be that being a works contract, the benefit cannot be availed by the writ petitioner. In the present case a substantial part of the contract was for painting involving a large amount of paint being consumed. Such finical distinctions to deny incentive appears to be unwarranted. For the reasons aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere. 10. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.