JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No. 5853 of 2014 Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of order dated 16.06.2014 contained in Annexue-21 whereby the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest subsidy pursuant to the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 for the financial year, 2009-10 has been rejected by the respondents. Further, prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent-State of Jharkhand to pay to the petitioner interest subsidy towards its claim for the financial year 2009-10 as per the provisions contained in Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. 3. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-company, on the promise extended by the State of Jharkhand through its Industrial Policy, 2001 was desirous of establishing an Integrated Steel Plant in the State of Jharkhand with an investment of approximately Rs. 995 crores. He submits that since the said Integrated Steel Plant, proposed to be established by the petitioner, would have fallen under the category of ‘Mega Industrial Unit”, the petitioner-company applied for prior permission for execution of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). He further submits that accordingly application was filed by the petitioner before the Secretary, Department of Industry as far back as on 24.05.2005 for execution of MoU. He further submits that several discussion were held by the petitioner-company with the officials of the respondent-State of Jharkhand and even recommendations were made as far back as on 24.12.2007 by the High Powered Committee for execution of MoU in favour of petitioner-company. He further submits that by letter dated 04.02.2011, the petitioner-company was directed to furnish certain details for execution of MoU in response to the said communication, petitioner replied to the respondent-Director of Industries vide its letter dated 12.03.2011 regarding the queries made for execution of MoU which is annexed with the Annexure-3 of the writ petition. He further submits that inspite of the best effort being made by the petitioner for compliance of the requirement of the respondent-State of Jharkhand for execution of MoU, the requisite MoU was not entered into by the State of Jharkhand with the petitioner-company. He further submits that inspite of the best effort being made by the petitioner for compliance of the requirement of the respondent-State of Jharkhand for execution of MoU, the requisite MoU was not entered into by the State of Jharkhand with the petitioner-company. He further submits that petitioner filed application for execution of MoU as far back as in the year, 2005, the petitioner-company had already started construction of its industrial unit in phase manner and till August, 2009, the petitioner-company had already commenced production of its industrial unit for manufacture of Sponge Iron and had established 4 kilns of 100 ton per day capacity in its industrial unit situated at Ramgarh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said industrial unit established by the petitioner was not falling under the category of Mega Industrial Unit and the same was falling in the category of ‘Medium/Small Industrial Unit’ and the petitioner was governed by the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 promulgated by the State of Jharkhand which was applicable in respect of Medium/Small Industrial Units. He further submits that the petitioner-company vide its application dated 21.11.2011 applied before the Office of the Director of Industries for issuance of certificate evidencing the date of commercial production in order to enable the petitioner-company to avail the incentives as per the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. He further submits that vide application dated 24.03.2012, the petitioner applied for payment of interest subsidy under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 which was rejected on the ground of delay in filing application which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that document and the facts of the case has not rightly been appreciated by the authority-concerned and the impugned order has been passed without considering this aspect of the matter that the petitioner made application on 24.05.2005 and date of commercial production is of 08.08.2009 and in view of Annexure-16, the Secretary of the Government decided that the eligibility of the petitioner will be considered on 17.01.2014. He further submits that it transpired that the period which was delayed due to action of the authority also has not been taken into consideration and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that it transpired that the period which was delayed due to action of the authority also has not been taken into consideration and in that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that it has wrongly been considered by the authority concerned about the fault on the part of the petitioner with regard to the payment of interest which is not acceptable in view of the certificate dated 26.12.2013 issued by the State Bank of India wherein it is admitted that petitioner has paid interest on time. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as petitioner has approached the authority after lapse of 1 year, 5 months and 24 days for grant of subsidy which is condition precedent for granting subsidy in view of Rule made for granting the said subsidy. He further submits that Rule was under challenge before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge said that Rule is not in consonance with Industrial Policy, 2001 and it was accordingly quashed. The said matter was taken up before the Division Bench and the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 211/2012 in the case of “State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Bir Steel (P) Limited” reported in 2018 (4) JBCJ 174 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the State is having authority to come forward with Rule and Rule was upheld by the Division Bench. He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench, there is no case of the petitioner and no interference is required by this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the impugned order dated 16.06.2014 and finds that it has been observed that the petitioner failed in depositing the interest with the bank in time and it appears that in view of certificate which has been issued by the State Bank of India contained at page 80 by which transpires that the State Bank of India has certified that the petitioner has paid interest on time. However, perusing the counter-affidavit of the State wherein a chart of deposition of installment has been brought on record by page 47 of the counter- affidavit wherein it transpires that one day delay is there for payment of certain installment. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the State Bank of India in certificate and this ground cannot be said to be correct ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. So far as delay part is concerned, it transpires that authority-concerned were considering the application of the petitioner in view of Annexure-16 and directed to post the matter with regard to eligibility of petitioner on 17.01.2014. The petitioner has already appeared before the authority on 21.01.2014 however, impugned order has been passed on 16.06.2014. It transpires that period which were under consideration by the State Government has not been taken into consideration of Mega Units status while passing the impugned order. This court is accepting the argument of Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-State that the State is having the authority to make out certain rule for grant of such subsidy to the Industrial Units and the rule also provides for condonation of delay, that has already been confirmed upto the Division Bench in the case of “State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Bir Steel (P) Limited”. 8. As the cumulative effect of the discussions made above and the Rule provided, it transpires that authority has passed the impugned order without considering all these aspects of the matter. In view of the matter impugned order dated 16.06.2014 is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Secretary, Department of Industries-respondent no. 1 who will pass appropriate order in accordance with law after providing opportunity and considering the documents which were not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order dated 16.06.2014. 9. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that fact of W.P.(C) Case No. 5977 of 2014 is different from the fact of W.P.(C) No. 5853 of 2014. In view of the matter, W.P.(C) No. 5977 of 2014 is detached from this case. 10. Post W.P.(C) No. 5977 of 2014 in the next week.