ORDER : 1. The petitioner, in this writ application, is praying for quashing two letters bearing no. 1927 dated 16.06.2017, issued by the Director, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, and the letter no. 2180 dated 11.07.2017, issued by the Under Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Jharkhand, by which both the authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of Capital Subsidy in terms of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. Further the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the capital subsidy which the petitioner is claiming to be entitled to, in terms of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the State and the petitioner. 2. The facts are undisputed in this case. The State of Jharkhand has formulated an Industrial Policy to accelerate the industrial development in the State. The said Industrial Policy is of the year 2001 and is known as the Industrial Policy, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as Policy of 2001). 3. Clause 29.0 of the said Policy of 2001 provides for Fiscal Incentives, to be granted to the industrial Units. There are nine types of fiscal incentives, which an industrial unit is entitled for. One of such incentives is the Capital Investment Incentive. As per the said policy of 2001, the units/new project with an investment of more than 50 crores is termed as Mega Unit. As per Clause 29.11 of the said policy of 2001, for Mega Units, special packages were to be formulated, on case to case basis through direct negotiation with the prospective investors. To ensure uniformity in providing various incentives, Schemes were notified vide Memo No. 1885 dated 10.06.2003. The Schemes provides for formulation of Rules for Mega Projects. The Special Incentives Rules (referred to as the Incentive Rules) for Mega Projects were formulated and the same was notified on 2nd August, 2005. The said Rule was made effective till the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 remains in force. Rule 2.9 provides for Fixed Capital Investment. Rule -3 deals with the applicability of the said Incentive Rules. Rule-3.2 provides that the benefits under the said Rules shall be available only to those units, which have gone into commercial production on or after 15th November, 2000 or undertakes expansion, diversification or modernization after this due date. Rule 2.9 provides for Fixed Capital Investment. Rule -3 deals with the applicability of the said Incentive Rules. Rule-3.2 provides that the benefits under the said Rules shall be available only to those units, which have gone into commercial production on or after 15th November, 2000 or undertakes expansion, diversification or modernization after this due date. On this background, the petitioner entered into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State of Jharkhand for facilitating of setting up of 100 megawatt power project. This MOU was entered between the petitioner and the State on 31.10.2005. Clause-13 of the said MOU provides that the Government of Jharkhand shall extend the applicable incentives and concessions as envisaged in the Mega Investment Scheme as notified vide Notification no. 1885 dated 10.06.2003 and Jharkhand Industrial Policy of 2001. Clause-14 provides that any new or improved incentive which may be announced by the Government of Jharkhand after signing this MOU, shall be additionally extended to the petitioner. The petitioner commenced the work of setting up of 2 x 270 MW coal based Thermal Power Plant with the capital investment of more than 50 crores. Two Units of 270 MW each Power Plant came into commercial operation on 21.01.2013 and 19.05.2013 respectively. The petitioner applied for grant of subsidy in terms of the MOU and the Policy of 2001, before the Special Secretary (Energy), Government of Jharkhand and also before the Director of Industries, Government of Jharkhand. Application was also made for grant of certificates for commercial production. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention that the Industrial Policy of 2001 was extended from time to time till the year 2012 when the same was replaced by a new Policy. The case of the petitioner was considered but the same was rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner falls in the category of the Independent Power Plant and there is no provision of granting any subsidy to any such Unit under the new Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2012. 4. Aggrieved by the said action of the State by which the subsidy was refused to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ application challenging the refusal order of the State and also for a direction upon them to make payment of the subsidy amount under the said Policy of 2001. 5. 4. Aggrieved by the said action of the State by which the subsidy was refused to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ application challenging the refusal order of the State and also for a direction upon them to make payment of the subsidy amount under the said Policy of 2001. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even after formulation and coming into effect of the Industrial Policy, 2012, the case of the petitioner will be governed by the Policy of 2001 and thus the petitioner is entitled for the subsidy amount, which the State had promised at the time of setting up of the Units. He further submits that admittedly, the Unit of the petitioner is a Mega Unit for which a special scheme was formulated and as per the special scheme the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of subsidy, which cannot be withdrawn unilaterally by the State, after entering into a MOU. He argues that once the MOU has been entered into by the State and the petitioner, the State is estopped from taking a plea that new Industrial Policy has come into force w.e.f. 2012 and the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit which falls from the earlier policy. He states that the provision of MOU is quite clear which suggests that the petitioner is entitled to get further benefits under the future schemes, which means that the benefits under the earlier Scheme cannot be withdrawn, rather the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits of the earlier scheme and also the benefits of the future schemes, also if the same is applicable to the petitioner. He further submits that the terms of the MOU should be honoured in all respect and the petitioner would not have made a huge investment if it was within his knowledge that the subsidy shall not be granted at a later stage. Learned counsel lastly submits that the entire action of the State is unreasonable and is liable to be set aside. 6. The State, on the basis of the counter affidavit, argues that the entire claim of the petitioner is frivolous. Learned counsel lastly submits that the entire action of the State is unreasonable and is liable to be set aside. 6. The State, on the basis of the counter affidavit, argues that the entire claim of the petitioner is frivolous. It is submitted that admittedly, the Industrial Policy of 2001 was effective till 2011, which was replaced by the Policy of 2012 and the said Policy of 2012, do not provide for any subsidy for an Independent Power Plant. It is also submitted that admittedly, the commercial production of the Units of the petitioner started on 21.01.2013 and 19.05.2013, i.e. after expiry of the policy of 2001, thus the petitioner has got no right to claim any benefit from the Policy of 2001. It is further submitted that the Principle of Promissory Estoppel, is not applicable in the present facts of this case. It is lastly submitted that the State has rightly refused the claim of incentives. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner is claiming Capital Subsidy in terms of the Industrial Policy of 2001 read with the Notification dated 2nd August, 2005, i.e. the Rules for Jharkhand Mega Project Incentives Rules of 2005 and the MOU entered between the State and the petitioner. There are two industrial policies, relevant for this case. One is of the year 2001, which is the basis of the claim of the petitioner and another is of 2012, which is the basis of rejection made by the respondents. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has set up an independent power plant for which there is no provision of granting any subsidy as per the Industrial Policy of 2012. Thus, the main question which would fall for consideration is as to whether on the fact of this case, the petitioner’s case would be governed by the Policy of 2001 and the Rules framed there under, or not? 9. For deciding this issue relevant provisions of Policy of 2001 needs to be looked into. The Policy of 2001 came into force w.e.f. 15.11.2000. Clause 29.0 deals with the incentives. Clause-29.2 envisages that incentives shall be admissible only once to a unit, which comes into commercial production during the period of the policy remains effective. It is necessary to quote Clause-29.2, which is quoted herein below:- “Clause-29.2-The type of incentives which are being offered are given below. Clause 29.0 deals with the incentives. Clause-29.2 envisages that incentives shall be admissible only once to a unit, which comes into commercial production during the period of the policy remains effective. It is necessary to quote Clause-29.2, which is quoted herein below:- “Clause-29.2-The type of incentives which are being offered are given below. Such incentives shall be admissible only once to a unit, which comes into commercial production during the period this policy remains effective: 1. Capital Investment Incentive 2. Captive Power Generating Subsidy 3. Interest Subsidy 4. Stamp duty and Registration 5. Employment Generation Based Incentives 6. Special Incentives for Thrust Areas/EOU and SC/ST/ Women/ Ex-Servicemen and Handicapped Persons 7. Feasibility Study-Project Report Cost Reimbursement Subsidy 8. Pollution Control Equipment Subsidy 9. Incentive for Quality Certification 10. As per Clause 29.11 Special Package is to be formulated for Mega Units. The Special Packages/Rules were framed, which is known as Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules of 2005. The said project was notified vide Notification dated 2nd August, 2005. It is specifically mentioned in the said Notification that this Incentive Rules of 2005 will remain effective till the effective period of Jharkhand Industrial Policy of 2001. Rule-3 of the said Rules of 2005 lays down the applicability clause in respect of the incentive rules. Rule-3.1 provides that the rules will come into force w.e.f. 15th Day of November, 2000. Rule-3.2 provides that the benefits under these rules shall be available only to those units, which has gone into commercial production on or after 15th November, 2000. The MOU, which the petitioner entered into with the State, is also in terms of the Industrial Policy of 2001 as it would be evident from Clause-13.0 of the said MOU. 11. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clear that the rights which the petitioner is claiming, derives from the Industrial Policy of 2001. The Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules 2005 or the MOU, which has been entered between the petitioner and the State, is dependent upon Jharkhand State Industrial Policy of 2001. As mentioned earlier, Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules 2005 clearly stipulates that the said Rules is effective till the effective period of Jharkhand Industrial Policy of 2001. The MOU entered between the parties, derives its strength and weakness from the said Industrial Policy of 2001 only. As mentioned earlier, Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules 2005 clearly stipulates that the said Rules is effective till the effective period of Jharkhand Industrial Policy of 2001. The MOU entered between the parties, derives its strength and weakness from the said Industrial Policy of 2001 only. These two (i.e. the Rules of 2005 and MOU), are to be read in conjunction with Jharkhand Industrial Policy of 2001 and cannot be read in isolation. The existence of this MOU and the Rules of 2005 is not independent to that of Policy of 2001. 12. As mentioned earlier, as per Clause-29.2 an industrial unit shall get fiscal incentive only when it starts commercial production during the period the policy of 2001 remains effective. This means, to get any financial benefit under Clause-29.0 or through any scheme formulated later on under the said Policy of 2001, one has to start commercial production during the period the Policy of 2001 remains effective. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the commercial production of the petitioner started on and from 21.01.2013 and 19.05.2013 in respect of the two units of the petitioner. This period of commercial production is admittedly beyond the effective period of the Industrial Policy of 2001. It is also the admitted case that by the time the petitioner has commenced commercial production, i.e. 21.01.2013 and 19.05.2013, the new Industrial Policy of 2012 has seen the light of the day and the Policy of 2001 was not in existence. Thus, since the commercial production of the petitioner did not commence during the period the Policy of 2001 was in force, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit under the said policy in terms of Clause-29.2 of the Industrial Policy of 2001. 13. The argument of the petitioner that the Principle of Promissory Estoppel will be applicable in this case is not accepted by this Court. The promise of the State to grant subsidy was coupled with some conditions. When a benefit is to be extended with some conditions, then the person, who is trying to take the said benefit, must fulfill the said conditions attached with it. The conditions remain attached with the said promise, which cannot be severed. If the condition imposed is not fulfilled then the benefit also cannot be extended. When a benefit is to be extended with some conditions, then the person, who is trying to take the said benefit, must fulfill the said conditions attached with it. The conditions remain attached with the said promise, which cannot be severed. If the condition imposed is not fulfilled then the benefit also cannot be extended. In such case, the person making the promise is not oblige or bound to honour the promise. 14. In this case, the promise was to grant fiscal incentive with a condition that the Unit must come into commercial production during the period the Policy of 2001 remains effective. Admittedly, this condition has not been fulfilled by the petitioner as admittedly the commercial production commenced after lapse of the Policy of 2001. Thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner cannot force the State to fulfill the promise, i.e. to grant the fiscal incentive. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court passed in the case of “Canara Bank and Another – versus-M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 ”, which has been cited by the petitioner, thus has got no application so far as the facts of this case is concerned. 15. It is an admitted case that there is no provision of grant of Fiscal Subsidy to Independent Power Plants in the new Policy of 2012, which was in vogue when the Plants of the petitioner started commercial production. 16. Thus, from the discussions made above, I find that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Fiscal Incentive in terms of the Industrial Policy of 2001 as he has failed to fulfill the conditions as envisaged in Clause-29.2 of the said Policy. Further, I find that he cannot derive any benefit from the MOU and Jharkhand Mega Project Incentive Rules 2005, which cannot be read in isolation to the Policy of 2001 as those documents also clearly provides that the same is valid till the Policy of 2001. The petitioner so cannot derive any benefit out of a lapsed policy or scheme, which admittedly has not been extended for the petitioner. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. Petitions dismissed.