JUDGMENT : AKIL KURESHI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.06.2017 passed in WP (C) No. 78 of 2010. 2. Brief facts are as under: The appellant original petitioner was running a business in the name and style of M/S Paul Enterprise at Kumarghat, North Tripura and was engaged in stone crushing. The unit was registered as small scale industry by the Director of Industries. The unit commenced its production on 16.09.2002. A certificate to this effect was issued by the District Industries Centre, Kailashahar, North Tripura on 21.02.2003. This certificate indicates that the unit had installed capacity of 19915 cubic metres and the date of commencement of production was 16.09.2002. 3. The Government of India, Ministry of Industries had framed a Transport Subsidy Scheme under a notification dated 23.07.1971 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Scheme of 1971) which envisaged limited transport subsidy for the cost of transportation of raw materials and finished goods to manufacturing industrial units in the category of small scale industries which are located in certain specified areas including the North Eastern Region comprising of several north eastern states such as, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. Such transport subsidy would be available for initial period of 10 years from the date of commencement of production. By a subsequent notification dated 28.07.1993 this period of eligibility of subsidy was reduced to 5 years. 4. Though in the petition the petitioner has referred to several other subsidies declared by the Central Government such as, capital investment subsidy, interest subsidy etc. which the petitioner was entitled to but was not granted, before us learned counsel for the petitioner had argued only with respect to non-granting of the transport subsidy. We have, therefore, focused only on this aspect of the matter. 5. Case of the petitioner is that its unit fulfilled all the requirements of grant of transport subsidy and for which all the documents were supplied to the department despite which such subsidy was not granted and on account of which the petitioner was unable to repay its dues to the secured creditors and faced bankruptcy. The petitioner had, therefore, claimed the benefit of transport subsidy at prescribed rates with interest. 6. The petitioner had, therefore, claimed the benefit of transport subsidy at prescribed rates with interest. 6. The petitioner has produced a letter dated 07.12.2006 written by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kailashahar to the Director of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tripura in which it is stated that during his visit at the site it was found that the unit was in running condition. On a subsequent visit he had verified all related documents for transport subsidy and found them all correct. He has also stated that the unit used to bring raw materials from the nearby State Assam for the unit up to March, 2006. However, at present the unit does not bring raw materials and it does job work only. 7. The petitioner made several claims for transport subsidy. However, these benefits were not granted. The petitioner thereupon filed the writ petition. 8. The respondents appeared and filed replies in which the stand taken was that the petitioner started functioning without electricity (with D.G. set) and never submitted any document or permission from Pollution Control Board. He thus started the unit without electricity by suppression of facts. After starting the manufacturing activity the petitioner shifted to job work and, therefore, also was not entitled to the transport subsidy. It was contended that since the unit did not undertake any production activity on its own, it lost its industrial character as manufacturing unit and was, therefore, not eligible for transport subsidy since under the scheme definition of “industrial unit” means an industrial unit where manufacturing programme is carried on. It is contended that in order to avail the subsidy the unit should not discontinue its production within 5 years from the date of commencement of financial production. Since the unit had shifted from manufacturing activity to job work activity this condition was not fulfilled. For this purpose, a reference is made to the letter dated 07.12.2006 from the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Kailashahar to the Director of Industries and Commerce which we have noted earlier. 9. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the petition on the ground that the subsidy scheme envisaged transport subsidy on movement of raw materials only when it is brought from the States outside the North Eastern Region and in the present case the materials for stone crushing activity were extracted from within the State of Tripura itself. 9. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the petition on the ground that the subsidy scheme envisaged transport subsidy on movement of raw materials only when it is brought from the States outside the North Eastern Region and in the present case the materials for stone crushing activity were extracted from within the State of Tripura itself. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “8. Simply put, the Liberalized Transport Subsidy Scheme extracted above stipulates that transport subsidy @ 90% would become admissible on the movement of “Raw materials” from one State to another within the North Eastern Region and that the Transport Subsidy would, however, not be admissible for movement of “finished goods” even within the States of North Eastern Region. This plainly makes it clear that only the movements by train or road of those raw materials which are brought into the State of Tripura from the selected areas or otherwise are entitled to avail of the benefits under the Scheme. However, in the case of movement of “finished goods” within the North Eastern Region, the liberalized Scheme is not applicable. In other words, the transportation costs of raw materials which are available in the State of Tripura and which are not brought into the State of Tripura are not entitled to the benefit of the transport subsidy under the Scheme. 9. Coming now to the facts of the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the raw materials for the stone crushing activity, assuming without admitting that this forms a part of manufacturing activity, were brought into the State of Tripura from the non-selected areas or even from the North Eastern Region; the raw materials for the stone crushing activity i.e. boulder stones, etc. were apparently extracted from within the State of Tripura itself. In other words, no transportation of such raw materials from non-selected areas or selected areas ever took place; this is never the case of the petitioner either. were apparently extracted from within the State of Tripura itself. In other words, no transportation of such raw materials from non-selected areas or selected areas ever took place; this is never the case of the petitioner either. That being the indisputable fact, irrespective of whether the boulder stones used by the petitioner for the stone crushing activity are raw materials or not, or whether the stone crushing activity of its unit is a manufacturing activity or not, the condition precedent for availing of the benefits of transport subsidy, namely, the raw materials used in the stone crushing activity must be brought into the State of Tripura from selected areas or otherwise, is not satisfied by the petitioner. Once it is held that there is no evidence to show that the raw materials used for the stone crushing activity of the unit of the petitioner were not brought into the State of Tripura, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the benefits of Transport Subsidy Scheme. The respondent authorities have rightly rejected its application. No other issue survives for consideration.” 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, the objections raised against releasing transport subsidy in favour of the petitioner from different sources are as under: (i)(a) The petitioner had started manufacturing activity without installation of electricity with the aid of generator and without obtaining clearance from Pollution Control Board. (b) That the petitioner was initially engaged in manufacturing activity directly, however, subsequently the petitioner started undertaking only job work. The subsidy scheme would not cover a job work (both these objections have been raised by the respondents in the affidavit and argued before us). (ii) The movement of the raw material as well as the goods was within the State alone and, therefore, the transport subsidy was not available as per the scheme (this objection is recorded in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge). (iii) The petitioner was not engaged in manufacturing activity at all. Mere crushing of the boulders did not amount to manufacturing (this argument was advanced by the counsel for the Union of India). 11. We shall have to judge whether any of these objections are valid. In order to assist us, learned senior counsel Mr. (iii) The petitioner was not engaged in manufacturing activity at all. Mere crushing of the boulders did not amount to manufacturing (this argument was advanced by the counsel for the Union of India). 11. We shall have to judge whether any of these objections are valid. In order to assist us, learned senior counsel Mr. Somik Deb for the appellant had submitted that the subsidy scheme did not envisage that the same is not available to a job worker or that the clearance of Pollution Control Board is necessary to claim the subsidy. In fact, such objection is an afterthought since the industrial department itself had certified that the unit was duly established and had commenced its manufacturing activity. He further submitted that the objection that unit was not engaged in manufacturing activity is also an afterthought. No such objection is ever raised by any of the respondents in their correspondence or even in their affidavit-in-reply filed in response to the petition. He lastly contended that the objection raised by the learned Single Judge is not borne out from any material on record. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the raw material was procured by the petitioner from within the State. In fact, based on the letter dated 07.12.2006 written by the General Manager of District Industrial Centre it is clear that the petitioner was bringing such raw material from the State of Assam. 12. In order to decide these issues we may take note of the relevant terms of the subsidy scheme of 1971. Paragraph 4 of the said scheme is a definition clause. Clause (a) of paragraph-4 defines an industrial unit as to mean an industrial unit where manufacturing programme is carried on. A new industrial unit is defined as to mean an industrial unit which has set up its manufacturing capacity and comes into production on or after the date of commencement of the scheme. It may be noted that the scheme was brought into effect from 15.07.1971. The term “selected area” would mean several regions and States specified therein including the North Eastern region comprising of the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura and Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. It may be noted that the scheme was brought into effect from 15.07.1971. The term “selected area” would mean several regions and States specified therein including the North Eastern region comprising of the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura and Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. Paragraph-6 of the scheme envisages grant of transport subsidy to the industrial unit located in the selected areas in respect of raw materials which are brought into and finished goods which are taken out of such areas. However, industrial units will not be eligible for transport subsidy for internal movement of raw materials and finished goods within such areas. The relevant portion of this paragraph reads as under: “6. Details of the Scheme: (i) A transport subsidy will be given to the industrial units located in the selected areas in respect of raw materials which are bought into and finished goods which are taken out of such areas. (ii) Industrial units will not be eligible for the transport subsidy for internal movement of raw materials and finished goods within the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the North-Eastern region, the state of Himachal Pradesh, the hilly areas of Uttar Pradesh, the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep and the State of Sikkim. (iii) In the case of North-Eastern Region comprising the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, the transport subsidy will be given on the transport costs between Siliguri and the location of the industrial unit in those States/Union Territories. While calculating the transport costs of raw materials the cost of movement by rail from Siliguri to the railway station nearest to the location of the industrial unit thereafter the cost of movement by road to the location of the industrial unit will be taken into account. Similarly while calculating the transport costs of finished goods the cost of movement by road from the location of industrial unit to the nearest railway station and thereafter the cost of movement by rail to Siliguri will be taken into account. Similarly while calculating the transport costs of finished goods the cost of movement by road from the location of industrial unit to the nearest railway station and thereafter the cost of movement by rail to Siliguri will be taken into account. In the case of North-Eastern Region, for raw materials moving entirely by road or other mode of transport, the transport cost will be limited to the amount which the industrial unit might have paid had the raw materials moved from Siliguri by rail up to the railway station nearest to the location of the industrial unit and thereafter by road. Similarly in the case of movement of finished goods moving entirely by road or other mode of transport in the North-Eastern region, the transport costs will be limited to the amount which the industrial unit might have paid, had the finished goods moved from the location of the industrial units to the nearest railway station by road and thereafter by rail to Siliguri.” 13. We do not find the objections as raised by the respondents to oppose the petitioner's claim on transport subsidy are valid. To begin with, the objection that the petitioner's activity did not amount to manufacturing activity has not been raised by the respondents in official correspondence. In any case, it does not require much effort to turn down such an objection. The admitted fact is that the petitioner is engaged in crushing big boulders into small chips of stone used for construction activity. Thus, an entirely new article through the mechanical process which the petitioner subjects the raw material to comes into existence. Further, the objection that having started as a manufacturing unit the petitioner later on was engaged in the activity as a job worker also would not make the petitioner ineligible for transport subsidy. It is the principal agency for whom the petitioner may be carrying out the job work, would bear the cost of transportation and when such an entity claims the transport subsidy, the question of its eligibility may be examined. However, the petitioner has claimed transport subsidy during the period which, it had undertaken the transportation of raw materials for its manufacturing activity. However, the petitioner has claimed transport subsidy during the period which, it had undertaken the transportation of raw materials for its manufacturing activity. The eligibility period for claiming subsidy may be 5 years, the scheme nowhere provides that only if a new industrial unit continues such manufacturing activity for a period of 5 years that it can claim the transport subsidy. Therefore, even if, as pointed out by the respondents, the petitioner at some later point of time after commencing its production got engaged into the same activity as a job worker, this would not amount to breach of any of the eligibility conditions of the scheme. 14. Now, coming to the objection raised by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, we find that there is a possibility of some factual error since the learned Judge has recorded that the subsidy scheme does not envisage a case where the procurement of the raw material is from within the State itself and in the present case, the petitioner had according to the learned Single Judge procured such raw material from within the State only. With the first part of this proposition, we have no dispute, however, with respect to the later observation that the petitioner had procured the raw material only from within the State, we do not find any basis. The respondents have not raised any such objection. Though the petitioner who had made subsidy claims which were supported by the certificates of the Chartered Accountant certifying the movement of goods, has not produced such supporting documents, from the letter dated 07.12.2006 from the General Manager of District Industrial Centre, it does emerge that the petitioner used to bring raw materials from the State of Assam up to March, 2006. This objection of the learned Single Judge, therefore, appears to be factually incorrect. 15. However, this is not the end of the matter. Even going by the petitioner's claim that the boulders in the form of raw materials were procured from the neighbouring State of Assam, we do not find that the subsidy scheme covers such a situation. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the scheme. The term “selected area” is defined as to include several States and regions including the North Eastern region comprising of the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the scheme. The term “selected area” is defined as to include several States and regions including the North Eastern region comprising of the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura and the Union Territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. Thus, these States and specified Union Territories formed a common block which was described as a North Eastern region. Clause (i) of paragraph-6 of the scheme, as noted, envisages grant of transport subsidy to the industrial unit located in selected areas in respect of the materials which are brought into and finished products which are taken out of such areas. Clause (ii) of paragraph-6 is an exclusion clause providing that the industrial units will not be eligible for transport subsidy for internal movement of raw materials and finished goods within the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the North Eastern region, the State of Himachal Pradesh etc. Combined reading of clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph-6 of the scheme and bearing in mind the fact that the North Eastern region in the entire scheme is referred to as one compact block, would show that the transport subsidy for movement of goods and finished products would be available as long as such movement either originates (in case of procurement of raw material) or is transported to (in case of finished goods) outside the North Eastern region. As long as such movement either of raw material or finished goods is within the region no transport subsidy would be available. Significantly, when it comes to quantification of transport subsidy in case of North Eastern region, it would be equivalent to the cost of transport between Siliguri and the location of the industrial unit in the said region calculating the transport cost of raw material the cost of movement by rail from Siliguri to the railway station nearest to the location of the industrial unit and thereafter the cost of movement by road to the location of the industrial unit. Same formula will be provided for calculating the transport cost of finished goods. For the raw materials moving entirely by road or other mode of transport the transport cost will be limited to the amount which the industrial unit might have paid had the raw materials moved from Siliguri by rail up to the railway station nearest to the location of the industrial unit and thereafter by road. For the raw materials moving entirely by road or other mode of transport the transport cost will be limited to the amount which the industrial unit might have paid had the raw materials moved from Siliguri by rail up to the railway station nearest to the location of the industrial unit and thereafter by road. This is one more indication that the subsidy scheme envisages grant of transport subsidy only where there is movement of raw materials or finished goods from outside the North Eastern region or from the North Eastern region to the rest of the country respectively. Transport subsidy would not be available for movement of raw materials as also finished goods as long as the movement thereof is confined between two locations both of which are situated in the North Eastern region. In the present case, even going by the case of the petitioner the raw material was procured from Assam which forms part of the North Eastern region for the purpose of the said scheme. 16. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, however, for reasons somewhat different from those recorded by the learned Single Judge. 17. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.