JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State of Assam, assisted by Mr. C.K.S. Baruah, the learned Junior Government Advocate for the State. 2. Common issues arise in these set of 4 (four) writ petitions for consideration by this Court and common set of Advocates are presenting the parties in all the said writ petitions. Hence, with the consent of both sides, these four writ petitions have been heard together. WP (C) 3686/2012- EVER ASSAM TEA PVT. LTD. 3. The case projected in the writ petition is that the petitioner had set up manufacturing unit for CTC tea and black Tea. By a notification dated 27.07.2007, which was published in the Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary Part-I bearing No. 217 dated 31.07.2007, the Government of India through its Ministry of Commerce & Industries had announced a policy known as North East Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (NEIIPP, 2007) by which three schemes including a scheme called as "Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007" was set in motion for a period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2017. The said scheme applied to all new industrial units as well as to an existing unit located under the North Eastern Region, which had gone for substantial expansion. Bereft of unnecessary details, it would be sufficient to mention herein that an eligible unit was entitled to "central capital investment subsidy" at the rate of 30% of their investment in plant and machinery. It was projected therein that an industrial unit which was eligible for subsidy under the scheme, should get themselves registered with the State Industries Department concerned prior to taking effective steps for setting up the new industrial unit or undertaking substantial expansion of existing industrial unit and to indicate the assessment of the total new or additional fixed capital likely to be invested by them in plant and machinery. The North East Development Financial Institution (NEDFi in short) was designated as the disbursing agency for the eligible subsidy. The North East Development Financial Institution (NEDFi in short) was designated as the disbursing agency for the eligible subsidy. As per the said scheme, the claim for the entitlement of subsidy was to be made before the jurisdictional District Industries Centre, which in turn would recommend the case of the eligible unit to the Director of Industries, Assam and thereupon the Director of Industries would recommend the case of the eligible unit to the State Level Committee, which is the ultimate authority for approving the entitlement of subsidy for an eligible unit. It is submitted that in respect of such subsidies, three schemes are involved, viz., (i) Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CCISS for short), (ii) Central Industries Subsidy Scheme (CISS for short) and (iii) Central Comprehensive Insurance Scheme (CCIS for short). In this case, the petitioner was registered for all the three schemes of the NEIIPP, 2007 and was allotted a common registration number. 4. The petitioner projects that it had commenced commercial production on 29.09.2008, and on 02.03.2009, the petitioner applied for the purpose of claiming subsidy by projecting that the existing fixed capital investment of Rs.206.52 lakh, after expansion was increased to Rs.277.21 lakh. The General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia by his letter dated 23.03.2009 (Annexure-4), forwarded the claim application of the petitioner to the Director of the Industries and Commerce, whereby the admissible amount against the claim of CCISS was recommended for an amount of Rs.21,20,834/-, being 30% of the fixed capital investment. 5. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure-6), the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Government of Assam, informed the petitioner that as per the decision of SLC Meeting for 30% CCIS held on 30.10.2009, the cost of plant and machinery needed to be certified by a valuer approved by Central Board of Direct Taxes in respect of the units, which had not availed any term loan from the Bank/Financial institution. Hence, the petitioner was asked to get the cost of plant and machinery assessed by such valuer so that the proposal of claim can be placed before the SCL Meeting scheduled on 21.01.2010. Accordingly, the valuation report of an approved valuer dated 12.12.2009 was submitted. Hence, the petitioner was asked to get the cost of plant and machinery assessed by such valuer so that the proposal of claim can be placed before the SCL Meeting scheduled on 21.01.2010. Accordingly, the valuation report of an approved valuer dated 12.12.2009 was submitted. Thereupon, Additional Director (F.P.), office of the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce by his letter dated 3/12 April, 2010 informed the petitioner about the approval of the CCISS claim to the extent of Rs.15,25,100/- in the SLC Meeting held on 31.03.2010 and the petitioner was directed to do the formalities of Agreement/Power of Attorney etc. to claim subsidy. However, as the subsidy amount was not forthwith coming, the petitioner by letter dated 27.01.2011 requested the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre to inform them about the fate of their claim. 6. Thereafter, the writ petitioner came to know that the 12th State Level Committee Meeting for 30% CCISS under NEIIPP, 2007 and 29th State Level Committee Meeting for 15% CCISS under the NEIP, 1997 (referred hereinafter as CCISS, 1997) was held on 11.11.2010, wherein a decision was taken to reject the claim of various applicants including the petitioner on the ground that such units had availed benefits under the Tea Board Schemes and had also applied for benefits under the scheme of 30% and 15% CCISS. Hence, it was decided by the Committee that dual benefits could not be given, if benefits were availed by Tea Board and SPINE. However, if a unit desires to avail such benefits they would have to surrender the amount received from other sources i.e. Tea Board and SPINE, etc. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondent to release 30% subsidy under CCISS, 1997 and for setting aside and quashing of the said minutes dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure-11) and for interest. WP (C) 3883/2012- VISION ISPAT PVT. LTD. 7. In this case the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of TMT bars and rods. In terms of the notification dated 27.07.2007, which was published in the Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary Part-I bearing No. 217 dated 31.07.2007, the Government of India had announced a policy known as North State Industrial and Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 (NEIIPP, 2007) by which a scheme called as Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 2007 was set in motion for a period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2017. This applied to all new industries as well as existing industrial units which was going for substantial expansion and are located initial under the North Eastern Region. The petitioner had set up a new industry, which had commenced commercial production on 16.05.2007. The petitioner got themselves registered for being entitled to capital investment subsidy at the rate of 30% of their investment in plant and machinery. It was projected that the petitioner had invested a sum of Rs.7,44,19,675/- towards fixed capital investment including plant and machinery. In respect of such subsidies, three schemes are involved, viz., (i) Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CCISS), (ii) Central Industries Subsidy Scheme (CISS) and (iii) Central Comprehensive Insurance Scheme (CCIS). In this case, the petitioner was registered for all the three schemes of the NEIIPP, 2007 and was allotted a common registration number. 8. The General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia by a letter dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure-6), forwarded the claim application of the petitioner to the Director of the Industries and Commerce whereby the admissible amount of Rs.1,48,90,000/- was recommended against the claim of 30% CCISS against fixed capital investment. Thereafter, as per the decision of 7th Meeting of the SLC for 30% and 24th Meeting of 15% CCISS held on 31.03.2010, the eligible investment of the petitioner against plant and machinery for 30% CCISS was approved at Rs.1,14,41,547/-. The Additional Director (F.P.), office of the Commissioner of the Industries and Commerce, Assam vide letter dated 07.04.2010, directed the petitioner to come to their office to do the formalities of Agreement/Power of Attorney etc. to claim subsidy to be disbursed through NEDFi. However, by letter dated 22/23 June, 2011 (Annexure-9), with reference to 30% CCIS, a copy of the Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 11.11.2010 was sent to the petitioner. The said extract is reproduced below: "Extract taken from the Minutes of 12th S.L.C 30% CCIS held on 11.11.2010. Discussion on dual benefits availed by Tea Sector for 30% & 15% CCIS. The Member Secretary informed the SLC that a number of units have availed benefits under Tea Board schemes as well as have applied for benefits under CCIS 30% and 15%. The Committee was of the opinion that duel benefits either from Tea Board or SPINE etc. should not be given and decided to reject the claims. The Member Secretary informed the SLC that a number of units have availed benefits under Tea Board schemes as well as have applied for benefits under CCIS 30% and 15%. The Committee was of the opinion that duel benefits either from Tea Board or SPINE etc. should not be given and decided to reject the claims. However, if the units desired to avail/apply then the unit need to surrender the amounts received from other sources (SPINE/Tea Board etc.) they could apply for incentives under CCIS. Hence, the claims which was put forward in a separate statement as below were rejected." 9. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce, Assam issued a show cause notice bearing 26/27 December, 2011 informed the petitioner that they had availed the grant of Rs.50.00 Lakh from North Eastern Council under the Ministry of DoNER in the scheme of SPINE and that an affidavit was submitted along with the claim application for 30% CCISS that no subsidy/grant was availed under Central/State Government organization by suppressing the receipt of aforesaid grant, as such, the petitioner was directed to show cause and to clarify the matter. A reminder notice dated 19/20 June, 2012 was also issued by the said Additional Director (F.P.). The petitioner submitted their show cause reply dated 29.06.2012, thereby informing the authorities that the petitioner was eligible for both subsidy and that the office of the Commissioner of Industries had forwarded and recommended both proposals, as such, the authorities were aware that industries were eligible for both SPINE and CCISS together. A list of similar industries who are availed both scheme was also forwarded along with the reply submitted by the petitioner. 10. The writ petitioner, thereafter, came to know that the 12th State Level Committee Meeting for 30% CCISS under NEIIPP, 2007 and 29th State Level Committee Meeting for 15% CCISS under the NEIP, 1997 was held on 11.11.2010, wherein a decision was taken to reject the claim of various applicants including the petitioner on the ground that the number of units had availed benefits under the Tea Board Schemes and had also applied for benefits under additional scheme for 30% and 15% CCISS. Hence, it was decided by the Committee that dual benefits could not be given, if benefits were availed by Tea Board and SPINE. Hence, it was decided by the Committee that dual benefits could not be given, if benefits were availed by Tea Board and SPINE. However, if a unit desired to avail such benefits, they would have to surrender the amount received from other sources i.e. Tea Board and SPINE, etc. Hence, in this writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the respondent to release the subsidy amount as approved in the SLC Meeting dated 31.03.2010 under CCISS under NEIIPP, 2007 and to set aside the show cause notice dated 27.12.2011 and 20.06.2012 and the decision of the SLC Meeting dated 11.11.2010 and for interest. WP (C) 4471/2012- ISHWAR FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 11. In this case the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of wheat products. In terms of the notification dated 01.06.1998, the Government of India had announced a policy known as Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1997 operating for a period from 24.12.1997 to 31.03.2007. The said scheme applied to all new industries as well as existing industrial units which was going for substantial expansion and are located in the North Eastern Region. The scheme entitled to the eligible industrial units for capital investment subsidy at the rate of 15% of their investment in respect of new units or units going for substantial expansion in plant and machinery, subject to a maximum ceiling of Rs.30.00 lakh. The General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia by his letter dated 12.07.2005 (Annexure-2) informed the petitioner about their registration under the CCISS, 1997. The same authority by his letter dated 18.12.2006, forwarded and recommended the claim made under 15% CCISS of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.14,79,256/-. 12. Thereafter, the Additional Director (F.P.), office of Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Assam by letter dated 16.12.2008, informed the NEDFi and the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre that the SLC in its meeting dated 22.08.2008 had observed that as incentive under SPINE includes incentive on investment in plant and machinery, as such, more than one incentive should not be granted on same component. Hence, the approval granted by SLC held on 04.12.2007 for Rs.14,79,256/- to the petitioner against 15% CCISS claim was cancelled. 13. Hence, the approval granted by SLC held on 04.12.2007 for Rs.14,79,256/- to the petitioner against 15% CCISS claim was cancelled. 13. Hence, in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to release the subsidy amount as approved in the SLC Meeting dated 04.12.2007 under CCISS, 1997 and set aside and quash the letter dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure-6) and the decision of the SLC Meeting dated 22.08.2008 and for interest. WP (C) 6755/2010- M/s. JUGUNBARI TEA COMPANY 14. In this case the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of Bought Leaf Factory, Tinsukia District. In terms of the notification dated 01.06.1998, the Government of India had announced a policy known as Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1997 operating for a period from 24.12.1997 to 31.03.2007. This applied to all new industries as well as existing industrial units which was going for substantial expansion and are located in the North Eastern Region. The scheme entitled the eligible industrial units for capital investment subsidy at the rate of 15% of their investment in respect of new units or units going for substantial expansion in plant and machinery, subject to a maximum ceiling of Rs.30.00 lakh. The petitioner had made additional investment on plant and machinery for the purpose of expanding their production capacity. The petitioner by their letter dated 03.01.2008, applied before the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia for registration under the CCISS, 1997. The petitioner, submitted their second claim application for 15% CCISS. The General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia by his letter dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure-3), forwarded and recommended the claim made under 15% CCISS of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.9,68,638/-. 15. Thereafter, the Additional Director (F.P.), office of Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Assam by letter dated 23/26 April, 2010 informed the General Manager, District Industries and Commerce Centre, Tinsukia that the SLC in its meeting dated 30.03.2009 had observed that as incentive under SPINE was availed, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, by filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to release the second installment of claim under CCISS, 1997 and set aside and quash the letter dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure-6) and the decision of the SLC Meeting dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure-7) and for interest. Submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners: 16. Hence, by filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to release the second installment of claim under CCISS, 1997 and set aside and quash the letter dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure-6) and the decision of the SLC Meeting dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure-7) and for interest. Submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners: 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that out of these four cases, the writ petition, being WP (C) 6755/2010 was initially heard and allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 08.06.2012, inter-alia, directing the respondents authorities to release the second installment of the subsidy under CCISS Scheme, 1997 to the petitioner therein within a period of three months from the date of the order. The said order was assailed in appeal, being W.A. 15/2014. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, allowed the appeal by quashing the impugned order, by remanding the matter back for a fresh decision in the writ petition in accordance with law on the basis of entire pleadings and documents and without being influenced by the said order. It is submitted that following the judgment of this Court in above referred WP (C) 6755/2010, the remaining three writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 4471/2012, W.P. (C) No. 3383/2012 and W.P. (C) No. 3686/2012 were also allowed by judgment and order dated 05.10.2013. The said common order dated 05.10.2013 was challenged in appeal. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by a common order dated 03.03.2014, passed in W.A. No. 15/2014, W.A. No. 14/2014, W.A. No. 72/2014, W.A. No. 73/2014, and W.A. No. 74/2014, allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back for fresh decision, without being influenced by the previous orders. This is how the matters have come up for fresh hearing before this Court. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines of the NEIIPP, 2007 and CCISS, 1997 did not contain any provision or clause or terms & conditions by which a industrial unit that had availed any other benefits from any other scheme including the schemes floated by the Tea Board or by the Special Promotion of Industries in North East (SPINE for short) would stand disentitled for the envisaged/proposed subsidy under NEIIPP, 2007 or CCISS, 1997. By referring to the guidelines of the SPINE, it is submitted that the said guidelines do not indicate that an industrial unit cannot avail any other grants or subsidy. By referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 23.09.2013 against the additional affidavit filed by the State-respondent, it is submitted that the petitioners have set up their industry and/or have gone for substantial expansion by taking loan from banks and by investing a huge amount from their own resource. Thus, by relying on the CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007, the petitioners had altered their position and, as such, the principle of estoppel would prevent the State from rejecting the CCISS claims of the petitioners on an assumed ground. It is further submitted that quality up-gradation scheme of the Tea Board as well as incentives allowed under SPINE were independent schemes and had no relation to the subsidies available either under the CCISS, 1997 or under NEIIPP, 2007 and that all the said schemes were mutually exclusive and/or unrelated to each other. It is submitted that while the scheme of Tea Board was granted by the Tea Board, which is an independent authority, the scheme of SPINE was being operated through NEC, under the Ministry of DoNER, and the scheme of subsidy under CCISS, CISS and CCIS under NEIIPP were all operated under the Union Ministry of Industries and Commerce. However, applications for subsidy was processed and recommended by the State Government through its common authority like DICC (District Industries & Commerce Centre), Directorate of Industries and Commerce and the State Level Committee (SLC for short) and therefore, once the petitioners had become eligible to claim CCISS under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007, the complete benefits could not be withheld in respect of the petitioner and moreover, when the same authorities like DICC, Director of Industries and Commerce and SLC were processing both the schemes under CCISS, 1997, NEIIPP, 2007 and SPINE, it must be presumed that the authorities are aware that the petitioners were entitled to the subsidy under all these schemes. Referring to analogous case being WP (C) 6755/2010, it is submitted that in the said writ petition, 1st claim was already processed and allowed, but the 2 nd claim was rejected. Referring to analogous case being WP (C) 6755/2010, it is submitted that in the said writ petition, 1st claim was already processed and allowed, but the 2 nd claim was rejected. Moreover, in the said writ petition, it has been brought on record that in 29 similar cases, dual benefits had been permitted by the authorities and that those benefits had been perfected without recalling of any benefits that had accrued in those 29 cases. Hence, it is submitted that the respondent authorities are prohibited from exercising hostile discrimination against the writ petitioners. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a strong objection to the statement made in the additional affidavit of the State-respondent, wherein it was alleged that the affidavit of the petitioners, which were submitted along with their respective claims for subsidy were a false affidavits. In this connection it was submitted that (i) no benefit had actually been granted to any of the petitioners on the date of such affidavit, and (ii) they had not applied for subsidy under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 but such applications were under different schemes. It is submitted that there was no prohibition for applying for subsidy under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007. Hence, my no stretch of imagination, the said affidavits could be alleged to contain false statement on oath. Moreover, it is submitted that the State respondents have not produced any material to show that on the date when the respective affidavits were sworn and submitted in support of claims under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007, any of the petitioners had been actually granted any subsidy under the said schemes or any other schemes in support of their allegation. It is further submitted that in the absence of any contradictory material by the State respondents, the allegations that those affidavits submitted by the petitioners were false would not be sustainable. 19. It is further submitted that in the absence of any contradictory material by the State respondents, the allegations that those affidavits submitted by the petitioners were false would not be sustainable. 19. It is further submitted that unless the State respondents can show that the subsidy scheme under the CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 or that given by the Tea Board were subject to any other schemes like SPINE or the Scheme of the Tea Board, the State respondents had no power to withhold and/or to reject their claim for subsidy because the subsidy under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 was to be released not by the State Government, but by the Central Government through its nominated disbursing agency. It is further submitted that nothing is contained in the two scheme of availing subsidy under (i) CCISS 2007, (ii) NEIIPP 2007, (iii) SPINE, and (iv) Tea Board that such schemes would be subject to General Financial Rules, 2005 on which the State Government is heavily relying, the said General Financial Rules, 2005 cannot be said to have any overriding effect on the entitlement of the petitioners to subsidy given by the authorities under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007. 20. It is submitted that the State-respondents have incorrectly interpreted the subsidy scheme with the contents of the Chapter of Grants-In- Aid from Rule 206. It is submitted that Grants- In- Aid cannot be equated with subsidy, as such, the reliance of the State respondents on the said General Financial Rules, 2005 was misapplied. Moreover, there was no Rule in the General Financial Rules, 2005 under Chapter-9 part, which was produced by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General of the State, which provided that the Central Government would not grant subsidy to any industrial unit more than one of various subsidy schemes operating in the field. Hence, it was not open to the State Respondents to reject and/or recall subsidy for the petitioners under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 because subsidy was received from Tea Board or under SPINE. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the "Minutes of the meeting of the Committee to monitor and evaluate ongoing projects under SPINE in North East Council for the State of Assam", which was held on 12.08.2009 (Annexure-1 to the affidavit in Reply filed by the State of Assam on 07.01.2013. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the "Minutes of the meeting of the Committee to monitor and evaluate ongoing projects under SPINE in North East Council for the State of Assam", which was held on 12.08.2009 (Annexure-1 to the affidavit in Reply filed by the State of Assam on 07.01.2013. The relevant para 4 of the deliberation is quoted below: "IV. Miscellaneous issues with the permission of the Chair: The Adviser (BIT), NEC apprised that as per decision of last committee meeting, Tea Board has clarified that there is no Government notification on classification of Traditional and Non-Traditional Tea Growing Areas, although Tea Board have its own policy in this regard. The matter relating to available subsidy/grants from different sources/Ministries (e.g. SPINE under NEC, CCIS under NEIP, 1997/NEIIPP, 2007, grants under MEPI etc.) by the same industrial unit was discussed. The Chairman opined that since SPINE Guidelines issued by NEC had never indicated that an industrial unit cannot avail other grants and subsidy from other sources, the matter is irrelevant." By referring to above, it is submitted that if the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department as well as the various authorities present in the said meeting held on 12.09.2009 had accepted the opinion of the Chairman of the meeting that since SPINE guidelines issued by the NEC (North Eastern Council) had never indicated that an industrial unit cannot avail other grants and subsidy from other sources, the State Government cannot be permitted to change their stand in its subsequent meeting under NEIIPP, 2007 to take a different and/or divergent view and to target the petitioners with hostile discrimination. Hence, it is submitted that the denial of the benefits of subsidy accruing to the petitioner CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 on the ground that the petitioner had been granted benefits of other schemes operating in the field was not sustainable. 22. By relying on the case of Union of India Vs. J. Tariang, 2013 (3) GLT 16, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, as there was a delay in disbursement of the subsidy, the petitioner would be entitled to interest in accordance with law. 22. By relying on the case of Union of India Vs. J. Tariang, 2013 (3) GLT 16, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, as there was a delay in disbursement of the subsidy, the petitioner would be entitled to interest in accordance with law. In support of other contentions raised by the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case citations, viz., (i) M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 621 , (ii) Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, (1997) 7 SCC 251 , (iii) State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 139 , (iv) State of Punjab Vs. Nestle India, (2004) 6 SCC 465 , (v) M.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Sales Tax, (2006) 8 SCC 704 and (vi) Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269 . Submissions made on behalf of the State by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General of Assam: 23. Per-contra, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General of Assam has submitted that in this case, the State action had an inherent purpose attached to it. It is submitted that the Schemes under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 were schemes to promote industrial growth in the North Eastern States. It is submitted that various schemes may operate from time to time, but all such scheme are subordinate to the law in force, including the Constitution of India, the various Legislative Acts, Rules, Notifications, etc. in the said order of hierarchy. The Central Government is required to the said General Financial Rules, 2007 for all its financial transactions. It is submitted that the Schemes of CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 did not prescribe for the various claimants and/or applicants for grant of subsidy under the said schemes to submit any affidavit in support of the claim, yet, such an affidavit was taken because the Government of Assam was aware of the provisions of the General Financial Rules, which prohibited same person to claim multiple benefits for same purpose or investment, as the case may be. 24. It is submitted that one industrial unit can be permitted to avail only one subsidy for capital investment on plant and machinery. 24. It is submitted that one industrial unit can be permitted to avail only one subsidy for capital investment on plant and machinery. However, if the petitioners are permitted multiple subsidies, under multiple schemes in operation, it would become a source of profit at the cost of public exchequer. It is submitted that the State Government did not disentitle the petitioners to avail subsidy. But, the petitioners were prevented from availing multiple benefits under various subsidy schemes in operation for same set of investment. Hence, for the purpose of processing claims by various applicants, it was a procedural requirement for the applicants including the petitioners to declare by way of an affidavit that they had neither applied for and nor they had availed more than one grant/subsidy for same set of investment. Hence, as per requirement, the petitioners had they had not availed any subsidy/grant under Central/State Government/Organization against the items mentioned in the claim application. 25. It is submitted that the applications of the petitioners were scrutinized in good faith by the concerned authorities on the premise that the petitioners had made a correct and solemn declaration by way of their respective affidavits which were submitted in support of their respective claims. But later on, when it was found that the petitioners had either applied for and/or had availed subsidy under Tea Board and/or SPINE as the case may be, the competent authorities had concluded that the petitioners had submitted false affidavits and consequently, under paragraph/clause 12 of the NEIIPP, 2007 the petitioners were not entitled to any further subsidy either under CCISS, 1997 or under NEIIPP, 2007. In the meantime, the SLC, in its meeting had resolved to reject and/or revoke the subsidy under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 processed and/or allowed in favour of the petitioners. 26. Referring to clause-12 of the scheme of NEIIPP, 2007, it is submitted that the said clause provided that it was within the power of the State Government to reject the application/claim for subsidy if its satisfy that the subsidy to an industrial unit was being obtained by misrepresentation as to essential facts or furnishing of false information or other grounds referred therein. In this regard by placing reliance on the affidavit dated 25.02.2009 [available in WP (C) 3686 of 2012 appended to the additional affidavit of the respondent filed on 19.09.2013], it is submitted that the said affidavit was submitted by the petitioner in the said writ petition in support of their claim for subsidy. In the said affidavit, it was stated on oath that "No subsidy/grant under Central/State Government/Organization, etc. have been availed by me against the items mentioned in the claim application volume". In light of the said statement, it is submitted that the claim of the petitioners for the subsidy was based on misrepresentation that they had not claimed any subsidy or grant under any other scheme for the same items. Hence, the State Govt. authorities were entitled to invoke clause 12 of NEIIPP, 2007 to cancel and/or revoke the subsidy processed and sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. 27. It is submitted that there was no impediment for the petitioners to avail the benefit of subsidy under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 but in order to avail that subsidy, the petitioners would have to forfeit and/or refund the subsidy on their investment in same capital goods by subsidy schemes of Tea Board and SPINE. It is submitted that if the industrial unit of the petitioners are permitted to avail similar benefits granted under various other schemes for the same set of investment, it would amount to their unjust enrichment because the total quantum of benefit by way of subsidy would exceed the maximum ceiling offered under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007. 28. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State of Assam submits that insofar as the scheme is concerned, there was no requirement of an affidavit, but the said affidavit was insisted to be submitted along with claim for subsidy on account of the provisions of Rule 209 of General Financial Rules, 2005. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, the provisions of Rule 209 (1) has been quoted in the later part of this order. 29. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, the provisions of Rule 209 (1) has been quoted in the later part of this order. 29. In the aforesaid context, it is submitted that under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 as well as under SPINE, benefits can be avail for capital investment, but the difference between the two schemes is that the benefit under NEIIPP, 2007 is an up-front benefit, which accrues at the time when such investment is made, however, as per scheme of SPINE, the benefits which accrue were back-ended i.e. such benefit accrued at the time of the end of the prescribed period of the scheme. It is further submitted that as on date, the writ petitioners have not filed any affidavit in this writ petition to counter and/or to challenge the stand of the State-respondents that the General Financial Rules, 2005 was required to be scrupulously followed with regard all financial implications, which included the release of subsidy granted by the Tea Board, by NEC under the SPINE scheme as well as under the CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007. It is further submitted that in the present case in hand, it is before the disbursement of subsidy had actually taken place, the State Govt. had rejected the application for subsidy in respect of the petitioners on finding fault in their application, which was found to be contradictory to Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 and as the petitioners false affidavit had vitiated such claim by application of clause 12 of the NEIIPP, 2007. It is stated that the petitioners cannot be permitted to take advantage of some lapses on part of the concerned employees under the State Government so as to reap dual benefits of two or more different subsidy on same capital investment, which would amount to an unjust enrichment of the petitioners. 30. It is submitted that in their said additional affidavit dated 19.09.2013, the State had taken a specific stand that in paragraph 5 thereof that the Industries and Commerce Department, State of Assam had issued notice to the concern parties for refund of the dual benefit availed under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 as they had availed subsidy under Tea Board or under SPINE, as the case may be. Hence, it is not correct for the petitioners to allege that the State Government had granted dual benefits to 29 other similarly industrial units. It is further submitted that it is not necessary to multiply one mistake with another. In this regard, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General has referred to the case of Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Mayadit, Indore VS. President, Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604 and the case of State of U.P. and other Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others, (2006) 3 SCC 330 , to canvass his point that it is not permissible to claim benefit under the principle of negative equity and that the petitioners cannot validly claim that since something wrong has been done in another, so direction can validly be issued by the writ court against the State to commit another round of mistake. 31. It is lastly submitted that in the present writ petition, only the State-respondents, viz., the State of Assam represented by the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department and Chairman of State Level Committee as well as the Director of Industries and Commerce Department have been arrayed as respondents. However, the Union of India and its concerned officials have not been joined as respondents in these writ petitions. Hence, it is submitted that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party on account of the fact that the State Government is not the party who would disburse the benefit of subsidy to the petitioners under the schemes of CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007. It is submitted that as per the procedure, the claims made for grant subsidy are required to be investigated, processed and approved by the State Government, as such, since the State Government is aware of the General Financial Rules, 2005 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, it was their duty to reject the application for grant of subsidy under the CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007. 32. No further submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Assam. It may be mentioned that although the verdict of the Court was reserved, but the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides were recorded in open court in their presence. DISCUSSIONS AND DECISION: 33. It may be mentioned that although the verdict of the Court was reserved, but the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides were recorded in open court in their presence. DISCUSSIONS AND DECISION: 33. The genesis of these cases is that all the petitioners have availed some sort of subsidy, be it from the Tea Board, or from NEC under the scheme of SPINE. For the same set of investments in plant and machinery, all the petitioners have applied for subsidy under NEIIPP, 2007. The main point of objection in the grant of approval of the subsidy by the State Level Committee in its various meetings mentioned hereinbefore, including the meeting dated 11.11.2010 was that the petitioners were availing dual benefits under the Scheme of Tea Board and SPINE. With this objective of the State Govt. in mind, this court has proceeded to examine the materials on record, which are:- (a). In connection with W.P. (C) No. 3686/12 - (i) writ petition, (ii) affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Industries & Commerce Department (Respondent No.2) on 30.11.2012, (iii) affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioner on 07.01.2013, (iv) additional affidavit filed by the State on 19.09.2013, and (v) affidavit in reply filed on 23.09.2013 by the petitioner against the additional affidavit of the State. (b). In connection with W.P. (C) No. 6755/10 - (i) the writ petition, (ii) affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Industries & Commerce Department (Respondent No.2) on 23.06.2011, (iii) affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioner on 08.08.2011, (iv) additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 12.09.2011, and (v) additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 04.06.2014. (c). In connection with W.P. (C) No. 3883/12 - (i) the writ petition, (ii) affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Industries & Commerce Department (Respondent No.4), (iii) affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioner on 14.02.2013, (iv) additional affidavit filed by the State on 19.09.2013, and (v) affidavit in reply filed by petitioner on 23.09.2013 against the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner. (d). In connection with WP (C) 4471/12 - (i) the writ petition, (ii) affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Industries & Commerce Department (Respondent No.2), (iii) affidavit- in-reply filed by the petitioner on 28.06.2013. (e). NEEIIP, 2007 Notification. (f). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 21.02.2007. (g). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 14.12.2007. (h). (d). In connection with WP (C) 4471/12 - (i) the writ petition, (ii) affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Industries & Commerce Department (Respondent No.2), (iii) affidavit- in-reply filed by the petitioner on 28.06.2013. (e). NEEIIP, 2007 Notification. (f). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 21.02.2007. (g). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 14.12.2007. (h). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 22.08.2008. (i). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 30.03.2009. (j). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 12.08.2009. (k). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 30.03.2010. (l). Minutes of the SLC Meeting dated 11.11.2010. (m). General Financial Rules, 2005. 34. Coming to the Scheme of CCISS, 1997, SPINE and NEIIPP, 2007 it appears that these are self- contained schemes. It could not be shown that these policies refer to any other Policy, Scheme, Act or Rules in force. It makes no reference to General Finance Rules, 2005. Moreover, it is well known that when schemes for promoting industries are mooted, before it is actually announced, such a proposal is routed through various departments and agencies and stake holders, which is a time consuming process and only thereafter, the policy and/or scheme is announced before the public to invite growth of industrialization in the targeted region. Therefore, this Court cannot just presume without any basis that the Central Government Ministries and Agencies, like the Finance Ministry and Ministries for Industries and Commerce, Tea Board, etc. were not aware of the various incentive schemes announced by one or the other for a particular industry or in respect of designated items for setting up an industry. If the interpretation sought to be portrayed by the State Respondents is accepted, it will lead to a laissez fare situation amongst various departments, and various departments of bodies would moot their own independent schemes for subsidy and grants, and then when the time of disbursement of money under those schemes comes, some agency would find fault with the party availing dual or more benefits and would deny any relief to the said party by applying some executive fiat. 35. In the present fact situation, the Central Government through its North Eastern Council is dealing with scheme of SPINE. 35. In the present fact situation, the Central Government through its North Eastern Council is dealing with scheme of SPINE. Both sides agree at the Bar that subsidy under CCISS, 1997 was to be granted on capital goods and that the said subsidy scheme is back-ended, meaning thereby that the benefits would accrue at the end of the eligible period of the scheme. Both sides also agree that the subsidy under NEIIPP, 2007 is dealt by the Central Government through the Ministry of DoNER. Therefore, the subsidy schemes under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 are handled directly by the Central Government, it is impossible to believe that they would have no notice of any other industrial promotion and/or incentive schemes like (i) Tea Board Subsidy, and (ii) Subsidy under SPINE. 36. Another way of viewing the matter is to see the way how the government deals with taxation. It is a fundamental principle of any taxing or financial statute like tax laws that for different purposes, that every taxing statute may carry a different meaning and purpose of taxing any goods or services or income, as the case may be. Therefore, in a given case, there may be an occasion for multiple taxation of the same goods or services under different laws or under different heads and categories or for taxing a particular receipt as income. If that is possible, there is no reason to presume that the various schemes announced by the government for granting subsidy must be availed only for one scheme and not for the other, even if the particular industry is registered for availing benefit under different schemes. 37. The District Industries and Commerce Centre as well as Director of Industries & Commerce are the two authorities, who had given the first and second stage of approval of the applications by the petitioners for grant of subsidy under NEIIPP, 2007. The same authorities are the there for the purpose of approving grant of subsidy under SPINE, 1997. Thus, as on the date of approving the case of the petitioner at the first and second stage, i.e. by DICC and Director of Industries, Assam, even those two authorities directly dealing with industry were not aware of the proposition projected by the State Respondents that one industry cannot avail the benefit of two or more schemes. Thus, as on the date of approving the case of the petitioner at the first and second stage, i.e. by DICC and Director of Industries, Assam, even those two authorities directly dealing with industry were not aware of the proposition projected by the State Respondents that one industry cannot avail the benefit of two or more schemes. And while approving the release of such benefits to other 29 similarly situated industries, the SLC also appears to be not aware of such proposition. Similarly, the SLC which was meeting for the purposes of SPINE, 1997 was also not aware of such proposition. It is seen from the perusal of the records that in the SLC meeting dated 21.02.2007, it was mooted that it was needed to be ensured that the facilities provided through SPINE are not over and above the subsidy provided under the NEIP, 1997. The 15% CISS, 1997 had provided for a maximum cap of subsidy to the extent of Rs.30.00 Lakh. In the SLC minutes dated 12.08.2009, it has been minuted as follows "The matter relating to availing of subsidy/grants from different sources/Ministries (e.g. SPINE under NEC, CCIS under NEIP 97/NEIIPP-2007, grants under MFPI, etc.) by the same industrial unit was discussed. The Chairman opined that since SPINE Guidelines issued by NEC had never indicated that an industrial unit cannot avail other grants and subsidy from other sources, the matter is irrelevant." 38. From the materials available on record it is seen that as per SLC Minutes dated 21.02.2007, the SLC was of the view that it needed to be ensured that the facilities provided through SPINE are not over and above the subsidy provided under NEIIPP, 1997. The SLC in its meeting dated 14.12.2007, 30.03.2009, and 30.03.2010 approved claims of various applicants for subsidy out of which 15% CCISS, 1997 had a cap of maximum subsidy amount of Rs.30.00 Lakh. As quoted in the preceding paragraph, that in the SLC meeting dated 12.08.2009, the SLC was of the view that SPINE scheme never indicated that other grants and subsidy could not be availed. However, the SLC in its meetings dated 22.08.2008 and 11.11.2010, rejected applications for subsidy on the ground that the applicants including the petitioners herein had availed more than one subsidy. However, the SLC in its meetings dated 22.08.2008 and 11.11.2010, rejected applications for subsidy on the ground that the applicants including the petitioners herein had availed more than one subsidy. Thus, from the above it is clear that the SLC meetings had been oscillating in their stand about entitlement of subsidy to various applicants under different schemes. In the opinion of this Court, the SLC cannot be permitted to take a volte-face, which is an act of turning around so as to face the opposite direction, or an abrupt and complete reversal of attitude, opinion or position. The SLC in its meeting dated 21.02.2007, having taken a stand that "SPINE scheme never indicated that other grants and subsidy could not be availed", the State cannot be permitted to take two different stands in the matter of grant of subsidy, one for the purpose of SPINE and another for NEIIPP, 2007. 39. Moreover, what is conspicuously seen from above referred SLC meeting minutes is that none of the SLC meeting minutes had referred to (i) any definite provision contain in any policy, (ii) any clarification issued by the Central Government, (iii) General Financial Rules, 2005 or any previous Rules in force, etc., which prohibited the industrial units to claim subsidy on same component on which any previous subsidy or grant had been received. It is also seen that the issue of multiple availing of subsidy under different schemes had been cropping up time and again. These cases are also pending since the year 2010, but in these proceedings, the Government of Assam had not produced any material by which there has been a directive and/or clarification from the Central Government, prohibiting that an industrial unit cannot avail other grants and subsidy from other sources. 40. It is seen that the SLC in its meeting dated 22.08.2008 and 11.11.2010 had not referred to the provisions of General Financial Rules, 2005 to reject the application of the petitioner. It is too well settled that when a particular action is taken by an executive fiat, the authorities cannot be subsequently permitted to improve their stand by way of affidavit. It is too well settled that when a particular action is taken by an executive fiat, the authorities cannot be subsequently permitted to improve their stand by way of affidavit. Hence, in the opinion of this Court when the SLC in its said two meetings had not referred any particular Rule of the General Financial Rules, 2005 to reject the respective claims of the petitioners herein, it is not permissible for this court to draw a presumption as to whether the SLC was influenced by Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, 2005 to reject the application of the petitioner when such explanation is not available in the SLC decision itself. 41. The present litigation had commenced with the filing of the present writ petition in the year 2010 and 2012 respectively. Orders passed therein gave rise to writ appeals in the year 2014, resulting in re-hearing of these batch of writ petitions. In these 6 to 8 years, the State respondents have not been able to show any notification by the Central Government and/or the State Government to clarify that notwithstanding operation of various schemes for promotion of industry in the State of Assam, one industry can avail incentive on any one of the many schemes in vogue. The Central Government is the ultimate payer of subsidy money under the then prevailing schemes of Tea Board, SPINE and NEIIPP, 2007. There is no material on record that the Central Government had clarified to the State Government that the units availing any other form of subsidy or grant cannot avail dual benefits, under such circumstances, when the SLC meeting has not documented in its minutes that it was rejecting the approval for grant of subsidy to the petitioners, it is not be open for the State respondents to take a stand to the effect that Rule 209 of the General Finance Rules, 2005 prohibited availing of dual or more benefits by a beneficiary. 42. As per P. Ramanatha Aiyers "The Law Lexicon" 3rd Reprint Edition, 2002, published by Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, the word "grant" is, inter-alia, described as the action of granting or bestowing; an authoritative bestowal, or conferring of a right; a gift or assignment of money etc. out of a fund, whereas the word "subsidy" is, inter-alia, described as money contributed by a State Govt., institution, or person in behalf of any special object. out of a fund, whereas the word "subsidy" is, inter-alia, described as money contributed by a State Govt., institution, or person in behalf of any special object. Therefore, the thin dividing line between the two words is that while the word "grant" is an act of bestowal, but the word "subsidy" in a contribution for a special object. In usual common parlance, a common man perceives grant- in- aid to cover for certain expenditures to be incurred by person, body, corporation, etc., but subsidy is generally used in the parlance of giving identifiable concessions, like selling of food grains or other controlled items like cooking gas, kerosene, etc. at a subsidized rates through PDS, etc. However, this Court hastens to add herein that the learned counsels for both sides have not placed any authoritative judicial interpretation of the meaning and purport of the said two words i.e. "grant- in- aid" and "subsidy. The said issue is of great significance because, the Rule 209 of General Finance Rules, 2005 is a part of Chapter-9 under paragraph "Grants- in- aid and loans". The first Rule of the Chapter is Rule 206, as such, it is deemed pertinent to quote the provisions of Rule 206, 207, 208 and 209 below, for a better understanding of the said Rule 209:- "CHAPTER-9 GRANTS- IN- AID AND LOANS 1. GRANTS-IN-AID Rule 206. As a general principle grants-in-aid can be given to a person or a public body or an institution having a distinct legal entity. Thus grants -in-aid including scholarships may be sanctioned by an authority competent to do so under the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978 to :- (a) institutions or organizations set up as Autonomous Organisation under a specific statute or as a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or Indian Trusts Act, 1882 or other statutes. (b) Voluntary organizations or Non Government Organisations carrying out activities which promote the welfare schemes and programmes of the Government should be selected on the basis of well defined criteria regarding financial and other resources, credibility and type of activities undertaken. (c) Educational and other institutions by way of scholarships or stipends to the students. (d) Urban and Rural local self government institutions (e) Co-operative societies. (f) Societies or clubs set up by Government servants to promote amongst themselves social, cultural and sports activities as recreational avenue. Rule 207. (c) Educational and other institutions by way of scholarships or stipends to the students. (d) Urban and Rural local self government institutions (e) Co-operative societies. (f) Societies or clubs set up by Government servants to promote amongst themselves social, cultural and sports activities as recreational avenue. Rule 207. The Ministry or Department of the Central Government directly concerned with the aim or activity of the Institution should consider requests for grants-in-aid in consultation with the concerned Financial Adviser. The Financial Adviser may associate a representative of Ministry of Finance wherever considered necessary. Rule 208. General Principles for setting up of Autonomous Organisations referred to under Rule 206 (a) : - (i) No new autonomous institutions should be created by Ministries or Departments without the approval of the Cabinet. (ii) Stringent criteria should be followed for setting up of new autonomous organisations and the type of activities to be undertaken by them. The Ministry or Department should examine in detail; (a) whether the activities proposed to be taken up are necessary at all; (b) whether these activities, if necessary, need to be undertaken by setting up an autonomous organisation only or whether these could be performed by the concerned government agency or any other organisation already existing. (iii) All autonomous organisations, new or already in existence should be encouraged to maximise generation of internal resources and eventually attain self sufficiency. (iv) Instead of giving recurring grants, wherever possible, the Ministry or Department may consider creating a Corpus Fund, the returns on investment of which, along with their internally generated resources should enable the autonomous organisation to meet its revenue expenditure. (v) A system of external or peer review of autonomous organisations every three or five years depending on the size and nature of activity should be put in place. Such a review should focus, inter alia, on; (a) the objective for which the autonomous organisation was set up and whether these objectives have been or are being achieved; (b) whether the activities should be continued at all, either because they are no longer relevant or have been completed or if there has been a substantial failure in achievement of objectives. A zero based budget approach should be followed in making this assessment. (c) whether the nature of the activities is such that these need to be performed only by an autonomous organisation. A zero based budget approach should be followed in making this assessment. (c) whether the nature of the activities is such that these need to be performed only by an autonomous organisation. (d) whether similar functions are also being undertaken by other organisations, be it in the central government or state governments or the private sector, and if so, whether there is scope for merging or winding up the organisations under review. (e) whether the total staff complement, particularly at the support level, is kept at a minimum, whether the enormous strides in information technology and communication facilities as also facilities for outsourcing of work on a contract basis, have been taken into account in determining staff strength; and whether scientific or technical personnel are being deployed on functions which could well be carried out by non scientific or non technical personnel etc. 45 46 (f) whether user charges, wherever the output or services are utilised by others, are levied at appropriate rates (g) the scope for maximizing internal resources generation in the organisation so that the dependence upon government budgetary support is minimised. (vi) An organisation whose performance is found to be outstanding and internationally acclaimed as a result of the review envisaged under above should be granted greater autonomy and increased flexibility in matters of recruitment and financial rules thereby enabling it to devise and adopt staff structures, procedures and rules suited to improving their productivity. (vii) Autonomous organisations as defined in (vi) above as also others with a budgetary support of more than Rupees five crores per annum, should be required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Administrative Ministry or Department, spelling out clearly the output targets in terms of details of programme of work and qualitative improvement in output, along with commensurate input requirements. The output targets, given in measurable units of performance, should form the basis of budgetary support extended to these organisations. Rule 209. Principles and Procedure for award of Grants-in-aid: (1) Any Institution or Organisation seeking grants-in-aid from Government will be required to submit an application which includes all relevant information such as Articles of Association, bye-laws, audited statement of accounts, sources and pattern of income and expenditure etc. enabling the sanctioning authority to assess the suitability of the Institution or Organisation seeking grant. enabling the sanctioning authority to assess the suitability of the Institution or Organisation seeking grant. The application should clearly spell out the need for seeking grant and should be submitted in such form as may be prescribed by the sanctioning authority. The Institution or Organisation seeking grants-in-aid should also certify that it has not obtained or applied for grants for the same purpose or activity from any other Ministry or Department of the Government of India or State Government. NOTE : In order to obviate duplication in grants-in-aid, each Ministry or Department should maintain a list of Institutions or Organisations along with details of amount and purpose of grants given to them on its web site. (2) The Internal Finance Wing of the Ministry or Department concerned should lay down the rules or pattern of assistance under the broad guidelines contained in this Chapter and instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance from time to time. All sanctions of grants-in-aid issued by a Ministry or Department of the Central Government or an Administrator in exercise of their powers under Rule 20 of the Delegation of Financial Powers Rule, 1978, as amended from time to time, should conform to the pattern of assistance or rules governing such grants-in-aid. (3) Award of grants should be considered only on the basis of viable and specific schemes drawn up in sufficient detail by the Institution or Organisation. The budget for such schemes should disclose, inter alia, the specific quantified and qualitative targets likely to be attained against the outlay. (4) Subject to the following terms and conditions, grants-in-aid towards administrative expenditure may be sanctioned to voluntary organizations to ensure a certain minimum staff structure and qualified personnel to improve their effectiveness and expand their activities under the following conditions :- (a) The grants-in-aid should not exceed twenty-five per cent. of approved administrative expenditure on pay and allowances of the personnel of the voluntary organisation concerned; (b) Grants-in-aid to meet administrative expenditure to any private institutions other than the voluntary organizations should not ordinarily be sanctioned. In exceptional cases such grants can be considered for sanction in consultation with Internal Finance Wing. (5) Every order sanctioning a grant shall indicate whether it is recurring or non-recurring and specify clearly the object for which it is being given and the general and special conditions, if any, attached to the grant. In exceptional cases such grants can be considered for sanction in consultation with Internal Finance Wing. (5) Every order sanctioning a grant shall indicate whether it is recurring or non-recurring and specify clearly the object for which it is being given and the general and special conditions, if any, attached to the grant. In the case of non-recurring grants for specified object, the order shall also specify the time limit within which the grant or each installment of it, is to be spent. (6) (i) The sanctioning authority may prescribe conditions regarding quantum and periodicity for release of Grants-in-aid in installments in consultation with the Financial Adviser. However, the release of the last installment of the annual grant must be conditional upon the grantee institutions providing reasonable evidence of proper utilization of installments released earlier. (ii) In order to avoid delay in sanction or release of grants in aid to the grantee Institutions, the Ministry or Department should impress upon Institution or Organisation desiring grants from Government, to submit their requirement with supporting details by the end of October in the year preceding the year for which the grants-in-aid is sought. The Ministry or Department should finalize their examination of the requests with the utmost expedition and make the necessary budget provision where it is decided to sanction grants. The Institution or Organisation should be informed of the result of their requests by April of the succeeding year. 47 (iii) When recurring grants-in-aid are sanctioned to the same Institution or Organisation for the same purpose, the unspent balance of the previous grant should be taken into account in sanctioning the subsequent grant. (iv) (a) All grantee Institutions or Organisations which receive more than fifty per cent. of their recurring expenditure in the form of grants-in-aid, should ordinarily formulate terms and conditions of service of their employees which are, by and large, not higher than those applicable to similar categories of employees in Central Government. In exceptional cases relaxation may be made in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. (b) Grantee Institutions or Organisations should be encouraged to take advantage of the pension or gratuity schemes or group insurance schemes or house buildings loans or vehicle loans schemes etc. available in the market for employees instead of undertaking liability on their own or Government account. In exceptional cases relaxation may be made in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. (b) Grantee Institutions or Organisations should be encouraged to take advantage of the pension or gratuity schemes or group insurance schemes or house buildings loans or vehicle loans schemes etc. available in the market for employees instead of undertaking liability on their own or Government account. (v) In making grants to non-government or quasi-government Institutions or Organisations, a condition should be laid down that assets acquired wholly or substantially out of Government grants, except those declared as obsolete and unserviceable or condemned in accordance with the procedure laid down in the General Financial Rules, shall not be disposed of without obtaining the prior approval of the authority which sanctioned the grants-in-aid. (vi) The sanctioning authority, while laying down the pattern of assistance, may decide whether the ownership of buildings constructed with grants-in-aid may vest with Government or the grantee Institution or Organisation. Where the ownership is vested in the Government, the grantee Institution or Organisation may be allowed to occupy the building as a lessee. In such cases suitable record of details of location, cost, name of lessee and terms and conditions of lease must be maintained in the records of the granting Ministry or Department. In all cases of buildings constructed with grants-in-aid, responsibility of maintenance of such buildings should be laid on the grantee Institution or Organisation. (vii) Any other special terms and conditions or procedures for transaction of business as Government may desire to be followed by the grantee Institution or Organisation, shall be got incorporated in the Articles of Association or bye-laws of the Institution or Organisation concerned before release of grants-in-aid. (viii) Grants-in-aid may be sanctioned to meet the bona fide expenditure incurred not earlier than a year prior to the date of issue of the sanction. (ix) Before a grant is released, the members of the executive committee of the grantee should be asked to execute bonds in a prescribed format binding themselves jointly and severally to:- (a) abide by the conditions of the grants-in-aid by the target dates, if any, specified therein; and (b) not to divert the grants or entrust execution of the scheme or work concerned to another Institutions or Organizations ; and (c) abide by any other conditions specified in the agreement governing the grants-in-aid. In the event of the grantee failing to comply with the conditions or committing breach of the conditions of the bond, the signatories to the bond shall be jointly and severally liable to refund to the President of India, the whole or a part amount of the grant with interest at ten per cent. per annum thereon or the sum specified under the bond. The stamp duty for this bond shall be borne by the Government. (x) Execution of bond will not apply to quasi-Government Institutions, Central Autonomous Organisations and Institutions whose budget is approved by Government. (xi) The stipulation in regard to refund of the amount of grant-in-aid with interest thereon should be brought out clearly in the letter sanctioning the grant as well as in the bond so required to be executed. (xii) (a) As a precondition to the sanction of grants-in-aid to the agencies where: (aa) the recipient body employs more than twenty persons on a regular basis and at least fifty per cent. of its recurring expenditure is met from grants-in-aid from Central Government; and (ab) the body is a registered society or a co-operative institution and is in receipt of a general purpose annual grants-in-aid of Rupees twenty lakhs and above from the Consolidated Fund of India; the grant sanctioning authority should ensure that a suitable clause is invariably included in the terms and conditions under which the grants-in-aid are given, to provide for reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or OBC in posts and services under such organizations or agencies. The relative provision may be on the following lines :- ".. (Name of Institution or Organization etc.) agrees to make reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or OBC in the posts or services under its control on the lines indicated by the Government of India". (b) While sanctioning grants-in-aid to Institutions or Organisations referred to in (a) above, the grant sanctioning authority should keep in view the progress made by such Institutions or Organisations in employing Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates in their services. (xiii) Central Autonomous Organisations which receive Plan grants as well as Non- Plan grants, should account for expenditure (Capital and Revenue) separately under Plan and Non-plan. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance has formulated standard formats for presentation of final accounts, for all Central Autonomous Organisations. (xiii) Central Autonomous Organisations which receive Plan grants as well as Non- Plan grants, should account for expenditure (Capital and Revenue) separately under Plan and Non-plan. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance has formulated standard formats for presentation of final accounts, for all Central Autonomous Organisations. All grant sanctioning authorities should enforce the condition of maintaining and presenting their annual accounts in the standard formats on all Central Autonomous Organisations. (xiv) The grant sanctioning authorities should not only take into account the internally generated resources while regulating the award of grants but should consider laying down targets for internal resource generation by the grantee Institutions or Organisations every financial year, particularly where grants are given on a recurring basis year after year." 43. Hence, in view of the discussions above, and upon reading the contents of the above quoted Rules, 206 to 209 of the General Finance Rules, 2005 it can only be concluded that as per the provisions of Rule 206 to 209 of General Financial Rules, 2005 the words "grants- in- aid" is envisaged to be money granted to institutions and bodies covered by Rule 206 and, as such, this Court cannot be persuaded to accept the submissions made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General of the State of Assam that the provisions of Rule 209 can be attracted also in the case of grant of "subsidy" for capital investment for plant and machinery for setting up industry or for capacity increase of the said industry, which was announced for promotion of industry in the State, be it under the schemes of the Tea Board, or SPINE, and/or CCISS, 2007 or be it under NEIIPP, 2007. 44. On a reading of the Scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 as produced before this Court, it does not envisage any format for an affidavit to be submitted. 44. On a reading of the Scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 as produced before this Court, it does not envisage any format for an affidavit to be submitted. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit to the effect " That no subsidy/grant under Central/State Government/Organisation etc had been availed by me against the items mentioned in the claim application form", in the absence of any clause/paragraph in the NEIIP, 2007 that there was any bar to avail subsidy under more than one scheme, cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioner has sworn an false affidavit, so as to import the rigours of paragraph 12 of the Scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 and to deny the benefit which had otherwise accrued to the petitioners. In fact, with all resources available with the State, the State has not been able to produce any material on record that as on the date of the said affidavit, the petitioner had been actually granted any benefit under SPINE or under the Tea Board, or that the schemes of Tea Board and SPINE had cast any prohibition to the petitioner to avail any other scheme, if subsequently announced by any authority, including the Central Government or the State Government. No material has been brought on record to show that the Central Government had conveyed to the State Government, any intention to put a cap to the limit of benefit that any industry in the State can avail under any incentive schemes, including those in force to avail subsidy by Tea Board, SPINE and NEIIPP, 2007. Moreover, in these cases also, the petitioners had made their application for subsidy sometime prior to the filing of the writ petitions, but they had not been actually granted such subsidy. Under the circumstances, when there was no certainty that when previously applied subsidy would actually be received by them, one cannot blame the petitioners to swear their affidavit to the effect that they not availed any subsidy or grant. There is no misstatement in their affidavit to the effect that the petitioners had not even applied for any other benefit. Under the circumstances, when there was no certainty that when previously applied subsidy would actually be received by them, one cannot blame the petitioners to swear their affidavit to the effect that they not availed any subsidy or grant. There is no misstatement in their affidavit to the effect that the petitioners had not even applied for any other benefit. Thus, if the petitioners were not entitled to any benefit, the State could have taken a decision, but when there is no statement in the affidavits submitted along with the claim to the effect that "the petitioners had not applied for any other subsidy/grant", this Court is unable to hold that the statements made in the said affidavits were "false", as projected by the State. 45. The submission made by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State that if double benefits under the same head like subsidy on capital investment are allowed to be availed under various schemes in operation, it would amount to source of income or profit making process to the entrepreneurs. This proposition prima facie appears to be very appealing, but if the accountancy scheme is seen, then capital goods are considered be to be long term capital investment. Therefore, as per the general accounting principle, if subsidy on capital goods is received, it is not debited to profit and loss account, as such, the subsidy granted and/or received on capital investment has the effect of reducing the capital cost. However, different accounting principle would apply if subsidy is granted and/or availed for revenue expenditures like subsidy on electricity of power, interest subsidy, transport subsidy, etc., because such receipts are liable to be debited to the profit and loss account and, as such, may be considered to be a source of revenue, and thus, source of profit. Thus, if by various schemes, the government authorities are keen to grant more than one subsidy on capital goods, it cannot be deemed that the industry, which has registered itself to avail such benefit, is indulging in profiteering. Such an interpretation would amount to give a different colour to the intent and purpose of such scheme and treats an industrial entrepreneur with questionable motive of "profiteering". 46. Such an interpretation would amount to give a different colour to the intent and purpose of such scheme and treats an industrial entrepreneur with questionable motive of "profiteering". 46. In the opinion of this Court, there was no one to stop even the State Government to issue a clarification, if it all it had any authority to do so, to the effect that it would not approve any application for grant of subsidy under CCISS, 1997 or under NEIIPP, 2007 if any industrial undertaking had availed the benefit of subsidy under the same head under schemes of Tea Board, or SPINE. But having not done so, the SLC had no authority to reject the application by the petitioner for grant of subsidy under CCISS, 1997 or under NEIIPP, 2007. 47. Moreover, the NEIIPP, 2007 came in the year 2007, while the General Financial Rules, 2005 was purportedly in force. Therefore, this Court must presume that the authorities under the Central Government were aware of such schemes prevailing for granting incentive to various industrial activity in the State. Hence, if the State was aware of the fact there was any intention to set up a ceiling-cap to curtail overlapping of grant of incentives under different scheme, the State would have asked the Central Government to clarify its position either in the Scheme of NEIIPP, 2007 itself or by issuing corrigendum or by issuing separate notification later in point of time, at least when these series of litigation had arisen. 48. In any event, the provisions of paragraph 12 of the NEIIPP, 2007 contains that "If the Central Government/State Government/Financial Institution concerned is satisfied that the subsidy to an industrial unit has been obtained by misrepresentation as to an essential fact, furnishing of false information or if the unit goes out of production within 5 years after commencement of commercial production, the Central Government/State Government/NEDFi may ask the unit to refund the grant of subsidy after giving an opportunity to the unit of being heard." Therefore, this is not a case where any of the petitioners have been actually granted subsidy. Moreover, technically speaking, SLC is neither the State Government, nor it is the Central Government. Moreover, technically speaking, SLC is neither the State Government, nor it is the Central Government. The SLC is merely an empowered committee consisting of highly placed Government officials of the Central/State Government and the representatives of NEDFi, etc., which is constituted to approve or reject proposals for grant of subsidy under the Schemes in force. Nonetheless, the SLC did have power to seek clarification, but it decided to reject the applications without hearing the petitioners. Thus, such decision is found to be bereft of adherence to the principles of natural justice. Before rejecting the applications of the petitioner for grant of subsidy, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 49.Therefore, on the basis of materials available on record, and in view of the discussions above, this court is of the opinion that there was no condition in any of the schemes/policy in force for grant of subsidy which prescribed a condition precedent that in order to avail the benefit of subsidy under CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007 any industrial unit must not have availed the benefit of any other Subsidy Scheme on capital investment granted by the Tea Board, SPINE, 1997 or benefit of similar nature under any other Central or State Government Scheme. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, it was not open for the State Level Committee (SLC) to reject the application of the petitioners herein. Nothing is produced to demonstrate before this Court that the SLC was permitted to have its own view dehors the clauses/paragraphs contained in those schemes, and to substitute its opinion to override clauses/paragraphs contained in such schemes, rather, it was merely empowered to act within the parameters and/or four corners of such schemes. In this regard, the SLC was to be guided only by those schemes and/or policies and/or or on any supplementary notifications that may have been issued by the competent Government to supplement and/or clarify/explain such schemes and/or policies. In the present set of cases, the SLC is held to have acted beyond the mandate of the CCISS, 1997 and NEIIPP, 2007. Hence, the minutes adopted by the SLC in its meetings dated 22.08.2008, 30.03.2009 and 11.11.2010, which are impugned in these writ petitioners are not found by this Court to be sustainable in any view of the matter. 50. Hence, the minutes adopted by the SLC in its meetings dated 22.08.2008, 30.03.2009 and 11.11.2010, which are impugned in these writ petitioners are not found by this Court to be sustainable in any view of the matter. 50. Although a statement is made in paragraph 5 of the Additional Affidavit filed on 19.09.2013 in WP (C) 3686/12 that the 29 industrial units who had availed benefits under SPINE, 1997 and have also been allowed benefits under NEIIPP, 2007 had been issued notice to return such benefit, but there is nothing on record to show that the State Government had enforced their said purported notices at least till the day these writ petitions were heard. Under the circumstances, this Court is constrained to hold that there is no material on record to show that the Central Government or the State Government had done any wrong in granting of approval to 29 similarly situated industrial units named in the writ petition. Hence, this is not a case where one wrong done in a previous case would be used as a precedent for perpetuating another wrong, as submitted by the learned State Counsel. Hence, this is in no way a case where the petitioner is attempting to enforce negative equality, which is deprecated in the case of (i) Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman, etc. (supra) and (ii) Rajkumar Sharma (supra), relied upon by the respondents. Hence, those two cases are found to have no application in the present case in hand. 51. Hence, in view of the discussions above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the decision in the SLC meetings dated 22.08.2008, 30.03.2009 and 11.11.2010, thereby rejecting the recommendation by (i) District Industries and Commerce Centre, and (ii) Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Assam, for approving the application of the petitioners herein for grant of CCISS, 1997 or NEIIPP, 2007 qua the petitioners herein are not justified and the decisions adopted in the said SLC meetings dated 22.08.2008, 30.03.2009 and 11.11.2010 impugned in these writ petitions are hereby set aside and quashed in so far as the petitioners herein are considered. Accordingly, the Govt. Accordingly, the Govt. of Assam, through its Commissioner/Secretary, Industries Department is directed to direct the State Level Committee under 15% CCISS, 1997 and 30% NEIIPP, 2007 to convey its meeting within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and to take a fresh decision in respect of the applications made by the petitioners herein for their claim of subsidy in accordance with the respective schemes by keeping in mind the observations made herein. Needless to mention that such decision would be forwarded to the competent authority of the Central Government. In the event such SLC has been disbanded by now, the State shall reconstitute such Committee at its earliest so that its meeting can be held within the time allowed. 52. The directions contained herein shall not be construed to bind the Union of India in any manner, because the Union of India is not a party to this writ petition. For the same reasons, the prayer made by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the subsidy amount for inordinate delay in disbursing such claim is refused because the money payable as subsidy is not being paid by the State of Assam, hence, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal by the petitioner was rejected by the authorities under the State of Assam, as no part of money payable as subsidy under CCISS, 1997 or NEIIPP, 2007 flows from the coffers of the State Exchequer, this Court is not inclined to saddle the State with the burden of interest on the subsidy claim amount. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of J. Tariang (supra), the same has no application in the present case, as the Union of India was a party. Order 53. Thus, the writ petition stands partly allowed on the following terms:- (a). The decisions adopted in the said SLC meetings dated 22.08.2008, 30.03.2009 and 11.11.2010 impugned in these batch writ petitions are hereby set aside and quashed qua the writ petitioners, without affecting claims of any other parties. (b). Consequently, the letters/communications to the respective petitioners for rejection of their respective claims for subsidy are also set aside and quashed. (c). Resultantly, the Govt. (b). Consequently, the letters/communications to the respective petitioners for rejection of their respective claims for subsidy are also set aside and quashed. (c). Resultantly, the Govt. of Assam, through its Commissioner/Secretary, Industries Department would now direct the State Level Committee (SLC) under 15% CCISS, 1997 and 30% NEIIPP, 2007 to convey its meeting within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to take a fresh decision in respect of the applications made by the petitioners herein for their claim of subsidy in accordance with the respective schemes by keeping in mind the observations made herein. (d). Needless to mention that any decision taken by the SLC would be forwarded to the competent authority of the Central Government. (e). It is further directing that in the event such SLC has been disbanded by now, the State Govt. shall reconstitute such Committee at its earliest so that its meeting can be held within the time allowed to consider the claims of the petitioners. (f). The directions contained herein shall not be construed to bind the Union of India in any manner, because the Union of India is not a party to this writ petition. For the same reasons, the prayer made by the petitioners for a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the subsidy amount for inordinate delay in disbursing such claim is refused because the money payable as subsidy is not being paid by the State of Assam, hence, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal by the petitioners was rejected by the authorities under the State of Assam, as no part of money payable as subsidy under CCISS, 1997 or NEIIPP, 2007 flows from the coffers of the State exchequer, this Court is not inclined to saddle the State with the burden of interest on the subsidy claim amount. 54. The parties are left to bear their own cost.