JUDGMENT : M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents in not sanctioning and releasing Investment Subsidy prior to Date of Commencement of Commercial Production (for short DCCP) of 35% and 45% of eligible Investment Subsidy as per guideline No. 6.4.10 of G.O.Ms. No. 108 Industries and Commerce (P&I) Department, dated 14.11.2015 (for short G.O) declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unjust, consequently direct respondents to implement guideline No. 6.4.10 of operational guidelines issued in G.O.Ms. No. 108, dated 14.11.2015. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries and Commerce (P&I), Department issued G.O. framed certain operational guidelines for implementation of incentives for establishment of industrial enterprises in Andhra Pradesh under new/expansion/ diversifications categories within the frame work of industrial development policy 2015-2020, sectoral policies, i.e. automobile and automobile component policy 2015-2020, textile and apparel policy 2015-2020, bio-technology policy 2015-2010, MSME policy 2015-2020, aerospace and defence manufacturing policy 2015-2020 and further stated in the G.O. that all other industries commencing production after issue of operational guidelines, the claim applications shall be submitted as per the time limit prescribed in the operational guidelines. As per operational guidelines, for implementation of industrial development policy and sectoral policies of Andhra Pradesh 2015-2020, condition No. 6.4 deals with claiming of investment subsidy prior to DCCP (DCP by SC/ST Entrepreneurs). As per condition No. 6.4.10, investment subsidy prior to DCCP will be sanctioned and released @ 35% and 45% of the eligible investment subsidy as first and second installments respectively in pari passu mode along with term loan by District Collector and Chairman, DIPC/Commissioner of Industries and Chairman, SLC as the case may be subject to availability of budget under SCSP/TSP and the final 20% investment subsidy will be sanctioned and released by DIPC or SLC as the case may be after commencement of commercial production. 3. In terms of G.O referred above, the petitioner applied for release of investment subsidy amount as per prescribed norms. The Assistant Director, O/o General Manager, District Industries Center, Ongole inspected the industry on 24.08.2017, observed that work is in progress, recommended for sanction of subsidy. In the said proceedings, Assistant Director has specifically mentioned that the total eligible investment subsidy i.e. 100% is Rs. 51,98,850/-. First installment @ 35% comes to Rs. The Assistant Director, O/o General Manager, District Industries Center, Ongole inspected the industry on 24.08.2017, observed that work is in progress, recommended for sanction of subsidy. In the said proceedings, Assistant Director has specifically mentioned that the total eligible investment subsidy i.e. 100% is Rs. 51,98,850/-. First installment @ 35% comes to Rs. 18,19,500/- and second installment @ 45% comes to 23,39,460/- and final total eligible investment will be calculated after DCCP of unit and balance 20% of eligible investment subsidy will be sanctioned accordingly. Inspite of report received by respondents from Assistant Director, the subsidy amount was not released by them as per guideline No. 6.4.10 of G.O. 4. The Government Orders earlier to G.O, issued by Government with a view to ensure more incentives to entrepreneurs and for enterprise development in the State, Government has extended various incentives to industries established by SC/ST entrepreneurs in the State. By following the said G.Os, Government has sanctioned and released investment subsidy amount to one M/s. Sri Shanthi Shanmukha Industries, Gundapalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District vide Pros. No. 39/2/2011/0683/0683/FD, dated 03.03.2012. The petitioner approached respondents on several occasions, requested them to sanction investment subsidy amount, but all the efforts made by petitioner became in vain. 5. Third respondent herein/The General Manager, District Industries Center, Ongole, issued proceedings in Lr. No. DIC/ONG/DIPC-30-01-2019, dated 30.01.2019, stating that first installment amount of investment subsidy prior to DCCP is only for Rs. 10,23,000/- but as per condition No. 6.4.10 of G.O. petitioner's firm is entitled for 35% as investment subsidy amount which comes to Rs. 18,19,500/-. Contrary to said condition, now the department has sanctioned only Rs. 10,23,000/-. Immediately on 22.02.2019, petitioner submitted a representation to first respondent herein/State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce (P&I) Department, stating that letter dated 30.01.2019 issued by third respondent sanctioning an amount of Rs. 10,23,000/- is contrary to condition No. 6.4.10 of G.O. and as per G.O. the industries are entitled for total amount of subsidy is Rs. 56,43,000/-. Moreover, the department is delaying with the matters for the last 3 years. On account of such delay, the petitioner suffered substantial loss and the industry suffered a lot, financially, without fault of petitioner. Therefore, the inaction of respondents in sanctioning only Rs. 56,43,000/-. Moreover, the department is delaying with the matters for the last 3 years. On account of such delay, the petitioner suffered substantial loss and the industry suffered a lot, financially, without fault of petitioner. Therefore, the inaction of respondents in sanctioning only Rs. 10,23,000/- towards investment subsidy prior to DCCP is illegality and contrary to guideline No. 6.4.10, requested to issue direction as stated above. 6. Third respondent filed counter denying material allegations, inter-alia contending that respondents sanctioned investment subsidy of Rs. 10,23,510/- prior to DCCP in DIPC held on 30.01.2019 on eligible investment, subject to submission of valid lease and BSI certificate, before commencement of production. As per G.O. operational guidelines for claiming investment subsidy prior to DCCP are as follows: Guideline No. 6.4.3: New MSMEs are only eligible for investment subsidies. After term loan sanctioned and disbursed. Guideline No. 6.4.4: The investment subsidy would be computed as per the financial institutions appraisal. However SC/ST entrepreneur should bring in capital at least 10% of the total capital. Guideline No. 6.4.5: The eligible SC/ST entrepreneurs shall submit the claims to GM, DIC, after sanction of term loan by the financial institution and after obtaining all Statutory Approvals. Guideline No. 6.4.6: The subsidy component should not be taken into consideration, while appraising the projects by the financial institution. The subsidy released can be adjusted against the term loan account where the loan installment already released. Guideline No. 6.4.10: The claiming of investment subsidy prior to DCCP will be sanctioned and released @ 35% and 45% of eligible investment subsidy as first and second installments respectively in "Pari Passu" mode. 7. In the present facts of the case, financial institution APSFC has sanctioned and release the term loan in Pari Passu mode and Pari passu means the financial institution should sanction and release 35% of total project cost of Rs. 1,15,53,000/- lakhs i.e. Rs. 40,43,000/- for first spell and 45% of total project costs is Rs. 51,98,000/- for second spell, which includes 10% of entrepreneurs contribution i.e. Rs. 11,53,000/-. Whereas, APSFC has sanctioned the loan including subsidy component taken into consideration, while appraising the project cost. Later, the Branch Manager, A.P State Financial Corporation, Ongole, on 21.11.2018, accorded revised sanction letter with reappraised project without reckoning the subsidy and the APSFC has sanctioned term loan of Rs. 62,28,000/- and released only Rs. 3,88,000/- on 19.06.2017 and Rs. 11,53,000/-. Whereas, APSFC has sanctioned the loan including subsidy component taken into consideration, while appraising the project cost. Later, the Branch Manager, A.P State Financial Corporation, Ongole, on 21.11.2018, accorded revised sanction letter with reappraised project without reckoning the subsidy and the APSFC has sanctioned term loan of Rs. 62,28,000/- and released only Rs. 3,88,000/- on 19.06.2017 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 15.02.2018, which caused delay in implementation of project and sanction of investment subsidy to the unit. The details of term loan component to be released in Pari passu mode is as follows:- S. No. Entrepreneur share (A) (Rs. in Lakhs) Term loan in pari passu mode (B) (Rs. in Lakhs) Total loan component to be sanctioned and released (A+B) (Rs. in Lakhs) Actual loan released (Rs. in Lakhs) Assets acquired (Rs. in Lakhs) Investment subsidy prior to date of commencement of production (DCP = 115 x 45% = 51,53,000/- 1st spell 11.53 (10% on total project cost 28.90 (35% on total project cost) 40.43 3.88 22.74 18.03 (51.53 x 35%) 2nd spell 11.53 40.45 (45% on total project cost) 51.98 1.00 -- 23.18 (51.53 x 45%) 3rd spell -- -- 23.12 (20% on total project cost) -- -- -- Total 23.06 69.35 115.53 4.88 22.74 51.53 The eligible investment subsidy on assets acquired is Rs. 22,74,000/- x 45% = Rs. 10,23,000/- 8. The inspection report dated 24.08.2017 was placed on record in DIPC held on 16.09.2017. The Committee raised objection that the project cost computed with consideration of subsidy component, while appraising project cost. Hence, the issue was deferred and instructed to place in the next DIPC. The District Collector and Chairman of DIPC, instructed to constitute sub-committee, for inspection and ascertain financial analysis of the unit in the DIPC to be held in 21.12.2017. Accordingly, a sub-committee was constituted and sub-committee inspected the unit on 24.01.2018, recommended for sanction of loan of Rs. 10,23,510/- towards first installment of eligible investment made by entrepreneur is placed in DIPC for approval on 24.03.2018. it is also submitted that M/s. Sri Shanthi Shanmukha Industries, Gundlapalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District was sanctioned and released investment subsidy prior to DIPC with Rs. 12,54,000/- as first installment and Rs. 16,13,000/- as second installment vide release proceedings No. 39/2/2011/0683/0683/FD, dated 03.03.2012 and proceedings even number dated 06.12.2013 respectively as per IIPP (2010-15). 9. it is also submitted that M/s. Sri Shanthi Shanmukha Industries, Gundlapalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District was sanctioned and released investment subsidy prior to DIPC with Rs. 12,54,000/- as first installment and Rs. 16,13,000/- as second installment vide release proceedings No. 39/2/2011/0683/0683/FD, dated 03.03.2012 and proceedings even number dated 06.12.2013 respectively as per IIPP (2010-15). 9. As per the minutes of the meeting held on 29.12.2017, a sub-committee was constituted for inspection of unit to ascertain the expenditure incurred so far for financial analysis, market analysis and seriousness of entrepreneur. Accordingly, sub-committee inspected the premises on 24.01.2018, recommended for release of an amount of Rs. 10,23,510/- towards first installment of eligible investment subsidy, prior to DCCP, the same is placed in DIPC meeting held on 24.03.2018. The DIPC resolved that a clarification is requested from Commissioner of Industries, A.P. Vijayawada based on guideline No. 6.4.6 of operational guidelines of IDP 2015-2020 policy, which states that the subsidy component should not be taken into consideration while appraising the project by financial institution. The subsidy released can be adjusted against the term loan account where the installment was already released. Therefore, the decision taken by respondents is in accordance with law, not violated any of the guidelines, prayed for dismissal of writ petition. 10. Third respondent also enclosed several documents to justify the action of respondents in granting investment subsidy of Rs. 10,23,510/-, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 11. During hearing the learned counsel for petitioner Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, drawn the attention of this Court to G.O. issued by Government, fixing operational guidelines for claiming of investment subsidy, prior to DCCP, more particularly, guideline No. 6.4.6 to substantiate her contention and also contended that the petitioner is discriminated from the persons who are similarly placed, i.e. M/s. Sri Shanthi Shanmukha Industries, Gundlapalli village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District, granting 35% of investment subsidy prior to DCCP. Hence, petitioner is entitled to claim investment subsidy of Rs. 18,19,500/- and not Rs. 10,23,510/- as sanctioned by respondents, consequently the action of respondents is illegal and contrary to law, it amounts to discriminating the equals, prayed to issue direction to respondents to release investment subsidy in terms of guideline No. 6.4.6, while declaring the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary. 12. Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce supported the decision taken in DIPC meeting and sanction of Rs. 12. Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce supported the decision taken in DIPC meeting and sanction of Rs. 10,23,510/- is in accordance with report placed before DIPC, since the earlier proposal was not accepted by DIPC, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such writ petition, since the beneficiary of G.O i.e. M/s. Sri Shanthi Shanmukha Industries, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further brought to the notice of this Court, various inspection reports to show that the petitioner invested Rs. 22,54,000/- approximately. Whereas, the investment subsidy is only Rs. 10,23,510/- sanctioned in strictly adhering to guideline No. 6.4.6. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to issue direction as prayed for, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Considering rival contention, perusing the material available on record, the point that arise for consideration is: Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim investment subsidy as per guideline No. 6.4.6 of operational guidelines of G.O.Ms. No. 108 Industries and Commerce (P&I) Department, dated 14.11.2015, if so whether sanction of Rs. 10,23,510/- as investment subsidy, prior to date of DCCP is illegal and liable to be set aside? 14. Point: The nature of industry to be established by petitioner, sanction of investment subsidy, passing of operational guidelines vide G.O. are not in dispute. The dispute is revolving around the amount to be sanctioned as investment subsidy prior to DCCP in terms of operational guidelines referred supra. 15. It is an undisputed fact that as per G.O. and operational guidelines issued by State, investment subsidy prior to DCCP will be sanctioned and released @ 35% and 45% of eligible investment subsidy as first and second installments respectively in pari passu mode along with term loan by District Collector and Chairman DIPC Committee, Commissioner of Industries and Chairman, SLC as the case may be subject to availability of budget under SCSP/TSP vide guideline No. 6.4.6. Thus, the mode of payment is pari passu mode. 16. Pari passu charge provides and equivalent right to the share of specified assets of borrowing company to all the lenders under the arrangements. In the event of default of repayment from the borrower, the joint lenders may decide to dispose of the security held by them in order to recover their dues. 16. Pari passu charge provides and equivalent right to the share of specified assets of borrowing company to all the lenders under the arrangements. In the event of default of repayment from the borrower, the joint lenders may decide to dispose of the security held by them in order to recover their dues. The realization proceeds of the assets disposed of would be shared among joint lenders in proportion to the balances outstanding in their accounts. Thus, in view of the meaning of pari passu charge, the rights of the joint lenders in proportionate to their share and any one of them in the event of default may sell the property and realize the debt due, proportion to their share and the entire amount shall be divided among all lenders in proportion to their sharers. Therefore, any one of the joint holders or any member of the consortium can proceed against the borrower for recovery of amount in case of default in repayment. 17. When investment subsidy of first and second installments is based on pari passu mode, along with term loan by State Financial Corporation, release is subject to guidelines. What is investment subsidy is not defined under guidelines, except referring investment subsidy under guideline No. 6.3. But as seen from the allegations made in the counter, the total investment as on date was only Rs. 22,54,000/-. The main industrial building was constructed in an area of 120 Sq. Mts and cost of it is Rs. 6,68,000/- similarly main industrial building first floor valued at Rs. 5,47,000/- borewell valued at Rs. 25,000/- the total is Rs. 12,40,000/-. The proposed construction of pending works i.e. plastering, flooring, painting etc. valued at Rs. 2,26,000/- flooring, painting, rolling shutters valued at Rs. 1,20,000/- machinery foundations Rs. 50,000/- electrification Rs. 1,50,000/- pipeline work and borewell Rs. 25,000/- sanitation and water supply valued at Rs. 1,50,000/- compound wall valued at Rs. 2,68,000/- and gate valued at Rs. 25,000/-. Thus the total investment on the building of M/s. Chaitanya Aqua industries is estimated at Rs. 22,54,000/- submitted valuation report thereto. Cost of plant and machinery is estimated at Rs. 1,01,00,000/- the expected date of commencement of production was 29.01.2018 as per part B1 cum verification of General Manager, District Industries Center. Later application of petitioner was placed in DIPC, sanctioned only Rs. 10,23,510/- based on investment of Rs. 22,54,000/- submitted valuation report thereto. Cost of plant and machinery is estimated at Rs. 1,01,00,000/- the expected date of commencement of production was 29.01.2018 as per part B1 cum verification of General Manager, District Industries Center. Later application of petitioner was placed in DIPC, sanctioned only Rs. 10,23,510/- based on investment of Rs. 22,54,000/- as per civil estimate in Annexure-II, since the investment is minimum of Rs. 22,54,000/- as per the material. 18. According to the contention of petitioner, respondents have to sanction the entire investment subsidy of 35% and 45% which comes to Rs. 51,98,000/- but the same was not sanctioned. The Assistant Director, RM&M made recommendation to the Committee for payment of first installment of Rs. 18,19,500/- and second installment of Rs. 23,39,460/- but sanctioned Rs. 18,19,500/- subject to verification certificate in Part-A document indicated in Part-C of claim application etc., but the same was not accepted and limited to Rs. 10,23,510/-. 19. The main contention of petitioner before this Court is that when petitioner is eligible for Rs. 18,19,500/- sanction of Rs. 10,23,510/- is contrary to guideline No. 6.4.10 and the calculation is not based on any material. But as per proceedings of appraisal note, the amount to be sanctioned as eligible advance investment subsidy prior to DCCP, SVC recommendation dated 30.11.2018 by inspecting officer is Rs. 10,23,510/- vide column No. 15, which is allegedly contrary to conditions imposed in G.O. Therefore, calculation is not based on any material. Hence, the alleged sanction of investment subsidy of Rs. 10,23,510/- is apparently contrary to recommendation in DIPC meeting, dated 16.09.2017, under the Chairmanship of District Collector, Prakasam District. Thus, the alleged sanction of Rs. 10,23,510/- is not based on any rule or guideline or estimate and the same is illegal. Therefore, DIPC is directed to reconsider the investment subsidy as first installment to petitioner, strictly adhering to procedure as per guidelines, more particularly, guideline No. 6.4.10 and take decision afresh within two (2) months from the date of this order, since the alleged sanction of Rs. 10,23,510/- is contrary to guideline No. 6.4.10 of G.O. and decision taken on 16.09.2017 by DIPC. 20. 10,23,510/- is contrary to guideline No. 6.4.10 of G.O. and decision taken on 16.09.2017 by DIPC. 20. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the investment subsidy sanctioned under the impugned proceedings, directing respondents to reconsider the investment subsidy payable to petitioner as first installment, afresh with reference to guideline No. 6.4.10 of G.O. pass appropriate order, for payment of first and second installments prior to DCCP, within two (2) months from the date of this order. The learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to furnish a copy of this order to respondents, to act upon it and pass appropriate orders, as directed by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.