ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. W.P.(C) No.2129 of 2010 was filed by M/s Satyam Ferro-Tech (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) for payment of interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the accumulated amount of interest subsidy from due date. 2. By filing an interlocutory application for amendment vide I.A No.4090 of 2010 further prayer touching upon validity of Rule 4.3(Gha) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 was sought to be challenged, the averments in respect of which are contained in paragraph nos.36A to 36E of the said application. 3. Rule 4.3(Gha) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 is extracted below : ^^4-3 lwn vuqnku % ?k & le; lhek 1- bPNqd bdkbZ;ksa dks lHkh n`f"Vdks.k ls iw.kZ okafNr dkxtkrks ds lkFk vius nkos fdlh foRrh; lky dh lekfIr ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj lefiZr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 2- 6 ¼N%½ ekg ls vf/kd dh vof/k dks {kkUr djus dh 'kfDr m|ksx funs'kd esa fufgr gksxhA blls vf/kd ds le; lhek dks {kkUr djus dh 'kfDr lfpo m|ksx esa fufgr gksxhA** English Translation: “4.3 Interest Subsidy: Gha - Time limit 1. The interested units must submit their claim along with entire required documents, complete in all respects, within six months of the financial year. 2. The power to relax the time period beyond more than six (6) months shall be vested in the Director of Industries. The power to relax the time limit beyond more than that shall be vested in the Secretary-Industries.” 4. By a common order dated 19th January 2011 W.P.(C) No.2129 of 2010 with W.P.(C) No.2141 of 2010 were disposed of in the following terms : “7. However, there is no dispute that there is provision to condone the delay. But, by the impugned orders the delay was not condoned saying that no cause was shown, whereas, it appears from the materials on record that there were good grounds for condoning the delay, but the same were not considered by the Director of Industries. In my opinion, if the incentives, promised are denied in such manner, it will send wrong signals. In my opinion, if the incentives, promised are denied in such manner, it will send wrong signals. The judgment relied by the State counsel are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, rather the aforesaid paragraph 16 of the judgment of “Tata Cummins Ltd.” (supra) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 57 , relied on behalf of the petitioner, is relevant. As this Court is satisfied that there are good grounds for condoning the delay of 70 days and 30 days in making some claims, instead of remanding the matters, such delay are condoned. 8. However, I am not inclined to condone the delay for the year 2003-04 in WPC No.2141/2010 as the explanation of the delay of 16 months is not satisfactory. 9. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to process the claims for interest subsidy of the petitioners (except for the year 2003-04 in WPC No.2141 of 2010) and disburse the legally payable claims as early as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With these observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.” 5. The proceedings in C.O. No.5 of 2011 would disclose that by an order dated 12th April 2018, L.P.A. No.211 of 2012 hearing in which by that time was complete was detagged and it was ordered that other matters shall be listed after the judgment in L.P.A. No.211 of 2012. The judgment in L.P.A. No.211 of 2012 was rendered by the Division Bench on 13th June 2018 upholding vires of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, particularly Rule 4.3(Gha). 6. The State of Jharkhand has filed L.P.A. No.65 of 2011 against the common order passed in W.P.(C) No.2129 of 2010 by which the learned writ Court held that there are good grounds for condoning the delay in submission of the application for interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. 7. L.P.A No.63 of 2011 has been filed against the common order dated 19th January 2011 passed in respect of W.P.(C) No.2141 of 2010, however, we are writing separate orders in both the Letters Patent Appeals. 8. 7. L.P.A No.63 of 2011 has been filed against the common order dated 19th January 2011 passed in respect of W.P.(C) No.2141 of 2010, however, we are writing separate orders in both the Letters Patent Appeals. 8. In W.P.(C) No.2129 of 2010, the Company produced various communications and recommendations vide memo dated 12th February 2009 and letter dated 15th February 2010 to demonstrate that its claim for interest subsidy for the financial year 2006-07 fell for due consideration before the competent authorities and in response to the aforesaid communications it furnished necessary documents vide letter dated 13th March 2009. It was further pleaded before the writ Court that vide letter dated 27th January 2010 the Company again submitted its explanation which was forwarded by concerned authority vide letter dated 15th February 2010. It was further pleaded that the Company on 31st October 2008 and 16th September 2009 submitted its applications for its claim for interest subsidy for the financial years 2007-08 and 2008-2009 respectively and vide letter dated 29th January 2010 concerned authority recommended its claim for interest subsidy for the financial year 2008-09. 9. As would appear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand in writ proceeding serious objections were raised to the claims made by the Company. On the legality of the order dated 23rd October 2010 which was challenged before the writ Court by filing an interlocutory application, Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate-General-IV, submits that the findings recorded by the Director Industries were not open to challenge before the writ Court and, moreover, the Company failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in submission of application for interest subsidy. Per contra, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the Company, would submit that sufficient materials were laid before the writ Court to form an opinion about sufficiency of cause shown by the Company. 10. The powers of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are concerned with legality, irrationality and procedural impropriety of an order passed by a statutory authority or the state instrumentalities. The High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 may issue writ of certiorari but only after recording its satisfaction as regards entitlement of the applicant. The High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 may issue writ of certiorari but only after recording its satisfaction as regards entitlement of the applicant. The writ Court is duty bound to take all the facts and circumstances into consideration and decide for itself even in absence of proper affidavit from the State as to whether any case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 11. In “City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala” (2009) 1 SCC 168 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated the parameter for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In paragraph no.30 of the reported judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ Court is duty bound to consider the following questions : “30..................................... (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. …...............................................” 13. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the writ Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its intrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for consideration of the Court – particularly, in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “30. …................................. The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law.” 15. After having examined the entire materials brought before the writ Court, the records of which are attached with the present Letters Patent Appeal, all that we find is that in its letters dated 13th March 2009 dated 27th January 2010 the Company put forth a ground that there was some delay in submission of the application for the financial year 2006-07. 16. In the letter dated 27th January 2010, the Company has stated thus; “1. That regarding delay in filing the application we would like to submit that necessary Turnover and Sales Tax Payment Certificate as well as Bank Interest Payment Certificate could not be obtained in time and this is the cause for late filing of claim for subsidy which please may be consider from your end.” 17. As is evident from a glance at the aforesaid paragraph in the letter dated 27th January 2010 there is no whisper about delay caused in submission of the application for interest subsidy for the financial year 2007-08. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the Company, lays stress over the observations in “State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Tata Cummins Ltd. & Anr.” (2006) 4 SCC 57 to submit that an exemption notification should be read liberally keeping in mind the objectives envisaged by the Industrial Policy and not in a manner so as to deny the benefits accruing to the Company. It is contended that from letter dated 27th January 2010 it can be inferred that for similar reasons as was the reason for delay for the financial year 2007-08 the applications for the subsequent years were also not filed in time. 18. There is no dispute as regards period of delays in submission of applications for interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. 18. There is no dispute as regards period of delays in submission of applications for interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. A glance at paragraph no.7 of the order dated 19th January 2011 which contains consideration by the writ Court as regards reasons for delay as put forth by the Company for claiming interest subsidy records that: “it appears from the materials on record that there are good grounds for condoning the delay”. 19. In the aforesaid consideration by the writ Court there is no reason recorded by the Court for arriving at the satisfaction as to sufficiency of cause shown by the Company. The writ Court has not even referred to the documents produced by the Company to fortify its stand, however, we have given reference of communications between the parties because those were referred to by the learned counsel for the Company in course of hearing. In the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that on the above aspect of the matter the writ petition should be remanded to the writ Court for consideration of the aforesaid issue with reference to the explanation offered by the Company and the reasons recorded in the order dated 23rd October 2010 passed by the Director, Industries. 20. L.P.A. No.65 of 2011 is allowed. 21. C.O. No.5 of 2011 has been filed by the Company against the order dated 19th January 2011. Besides challenge to Rule 4.3(Gha), the present Cross Objection is filed for the following reason : 32. “That it is stated that the Cross-objector has been advised to file this Cross-objection against the portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby the challenge made by the Cross-objector to the provisions of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 has been rejected. Further the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ application, had also not considered the prayer of the Cross-objector with respect to payment of interest which the Cross-objector-company was entitled specially because there has been admittedly long delay by the Respondents-authorities in processing and making payment of the claim of the Cross-objector.” 22. We may indicate that the grounds raised in C.O No.5 of 2011 which are sought to be canvassed by Mr. We may indicate that the grounds raised in C.O No.5 of 2011 which are sought to be canvassed by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the Company, cannot be adjudicated in the present Cross Objection filed by the Company for the reason that finding by the writ Court that by providing limitation of 6 months for making claims would not amount to curtailing the rights of the Company under Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 stands affirmed by the judgment dated 13th June 2018 passed in L.P.A No.211 of 2012. 23. C.O. No.5 of 2011 is dismissed. 24. The writ petition shall be listed before the Hon'ble jurisdictional Court for examining the aforesaid issues and legality of the order dated 23rd October 2010.