JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Shilpi John, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Kerketta, J.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a) For quashing the order dated 19.04.2007 (Annexure-4) by which the prayer of the petitioner for release of capital subsidy under Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 has been rejected; (b) Further prayer has been made in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the capital subsidy in favour of the petitioner under its expanded programme. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has established industrial unit for manufacturing of Silico Manganese within the territory of the State of Jharkhand which started its commercial production w.e.f. 27.01.2004 and the petitioner had applied for capital subsidy under the provisions of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001. Thereafter after due enquiry, the matter was placed before the Committee and the State Level Committee in its meeting held on 31.10.2005 resolved to grant capital subsidy to the petitioner-unit and the same was communicated to the Director, Industries, Government of Jharkhand by letter dated 28.02.2006 which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As per Annexure-1, the petitioner was paid Rs. 25 lacs as capital subsidy. Thereafter the petitioner company expanded its unit by making a separate unit with investment of more than Rs.333.12 lacs and accordingly applied for further capital subsidy for the expanded unit. The same was processed and the Director, Industries, Government of Jharkhand notified 08.09.2004 as the date of commercial production of second unit (expanded) vide his letter dated 14.05.2005. The said letter is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner claimed that the company is entitled for capital subsidy even for the expansion of the unit as the investment was more than 33%. By the impugned order as contained in Annexure-4, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that under Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001, the writ petitioner is not entitled for second subsidy even after expansion of the unit. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, particularly in view of the fact that the respondent authority has not properly appreciated the provisions of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001. 5. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is absolutely illegal, particularly in view of the fact that the respondent authority has not properly appreciated the provisions of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001. 5. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the grant of capital subsidy is covered under Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 which made effective from 15th November 2000. He submits that paragraph no. 3 of Annexure-1 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 defines existing industrial unit means an industrial unit which has gone into commercial production before the effective date and the new Industrial Unit has also been defined in paragraph no. 4 as New Industrial Unit means an industrial unit which has come into commercial production between 15th November, 2000 and 31st March 2005. Paragraph no. 8 of Annexure-1 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 defines expansion/modernisation/Diversification of an existing industrial unit would mean additional fixed capital investment in plant and machinery of 33% or more. Paragraph no. 29.2 of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 envisages types of incentives which can be offered and such incentives shall be admissible only once in a unit which comes into commercial production during the period this policy remains effective. In the instant case, by referring to chart as contained in page-13 of the counter-affidavit, counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has already availed the capital subsidy under Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for second capital subsidy under the industrial policy. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to grant any relief to the petitioner on account of the fact that Paragraph no. 29.2 of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 envisages types of incentives which can be offered and it has been specifically mentioned that such incentives shall be admissible only once in a unit which comes into commercial production during the period this policy remains effective. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision which entitles the petitioner to avail claim of subsidy even in the expanded unit of the petitioner on the fact of Paragraph 29.2 of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 which reads as follows:- 29.2 The types of incentives which are being offered are given below. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision which entitles the petitioner to avail claim of subsidy even in the expanded unit of the petitioner on the fact of Paragraph 29.2 of Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001 which reads as follows:- 29.2 The types 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 7. This court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 19.04.2007 (Annexure-4) rejecting the claim of the petition for subsidy in its expanded unit has been rightly rejected in view of the provisions of the Jharkhand Industrial policy, 2001 there being a clear provision under Industrial Policy 2001 that capital subsidy cannot be availed twice. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.