ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A. No. 3272 of 2011 in L.P.A. No. 63 of 2011 This application has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for incorporating the following prayers in Letters Patent Appeal : “a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to call for and quash the decision of the State of Jharkhand, whereby and whereunder, a decision has been taken to reject the portion of the claim of interest subsidy of the petitioner for the financial year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 on the ground that there was alleged delay in repayment of interest by the petitioner to its banker; b. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for declaring the provisions of Clause 4.3 Ka (4) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 as ultra vires and contrary to the Industrial Policy, 2001; c. For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction for directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to pay the balance amount of Rs.67,42,522/- payable to the petitioner towards interest subsidy for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 as per the provisions and stipulation contained in Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001.” 2. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for M/s Shivam Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), submits that the amendment application which should have been filed in C.O. No.3 of 2011 was inadvertently filed by the Company in L.P.A. No.63 of 2011. 3. We are not inclined to accept the plea of inadvertence taken on behalf of the Company primarily for the reason that L.P.A. No.63 of 2011 with C.O. No.3 of 2011 came on Board for hearing on several occasions in the last eleven years since I.A. No.3272 of 2011 was filed – 22 times but this application was never pressed. 4. Still, since Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the Company, has referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and argued this matter at length, we would deal I.A. No.3272 of 2011 on merits also. 5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the Company, submits that in Cont. 4. Still, since Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the Company, has referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and argued this matter at length, we would deal I.A. No.3272 of 2011 on merits also. 5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel appearing for the Company, submits that in Cont. Case (Civil) No.224 of 2011 the State of Jharkhand took a new plea which was not raised before the writ Court nor in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State to deny a part of interest subsidy to the Company and, therefore, it became necessary for the Company to file amendment application. It is submitted that by virtue of a liberty granted to the Company in Cont. Case (Civil) No.224 of 2011, I.A. No.3272 of 2011 has been filed. 6. After amendment in Order VI Rule 17 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act), 2002 the Court may permit either party to a suit to amend his pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, we would not take a rigid view to examine maintainability of I.A No.3272 of 2011 with the yardstick of the limitations which are applied to an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. It is well-settled that all amendments which are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties shall be allowed. One of the considerations whether amendment should be granted or not is to find out whether it would cause prejudice to the other party or injustice to the applicant. 8. In “Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons” (2009) 10 SCC 84 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the decision on an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a very serious exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner but at the same time bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments should not be refused by the Court. 9. According to the Company, the necessity for filing the present application arose on account of the order dated 23rd October 2010 by which interest subsidy for a particular year was refused in the garb of Clause 4.3 Ka (4) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003. 9. According to the Company, the necessity for filing the present application arose on account of the order dated 23rd October 2010 by which interest subsidy for a particular year was refused in the garb of Clause 4.3 Ka (4) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003. From a reading of the order dated 20th October 2011 passed in Cont. Case (Civil) No.224 of 2011, it appears that the dispute before the contempt Court was of such kind that the Court felt that the same would require determination of the question of fact with respect to quantification of the amount of subsidy. At the same time, the Hon'ble Division Bench gave liberty to the Company to file an application in the Letters Patent Appeal. 10. Order dated 20th October 2011 passed by the Division Bench in Cont. Case (Civil) No.224 of 2011 reads as under : “Learned counsel for the respondent in L.P.A. No.63 of 2011, who is petitioner in this contempt petition very rightly submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw this application so as to move an interlocutory application to take additional ground which is required to be taken in view of the stand taken by the respondent after the order passed by this Court on 16th March 2011 and by which they have denied the part of the benefit to the respondent in L.P.A. No. 63 of 2011. This Contempt Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty as prayed.” 11. As we understand from the aforesaid observation in the order dated 20th October 2011, the amendments sought to be incorporated through I.A. No.3272 of 2011 cannot be automatically incorporated by virtue of the said order. The Court is required to see whether the amendments as sought by the Company can be permitted or not. 12. The applicant seeks writ of certiorari declaring Clause 4.3 Ka (4) of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 ultra vires, as contrary to the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001. The company further seeks a direction to the State of Jharkhand to pay the balance amount of Rs.67,42,522/- as also to quash the decision dated 23rd October 2010. 13. The aforesaid issues which were never before the writ Court even incidentally rather according to the Company arose during pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal cannot be incorporated in the pending lis. 13. The aforesaid issues which were never before the writ Court even incidentally rather according to the Company arose during pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal cannot be incorporated in the pending lis. Furthermore, as we have already indicated, there is inordinate delay of more than 11 years in pressing this interlocutory application for amendment for which there is no explanation. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I.A. No.3272 of 2011 is dismissed. L.P.A. No.63 of 2011 with C.O. No.3 of 2011 15. W.P.(C) No.2141 of 2010 was filed by the Company for payment of interest subsidy for the financial years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the accumulated amount of interest subsidy from due date. 16. By filing an interlocutory application for amendment vide I.A. No.4091 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. 17. 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.” 18. The proceedings in C.O. No.3 of 2011 would disclose that several Cross Objections, Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions were listed and heard together on several dates. The power to relax the time limit beyond more than that shall be vested in the Secretary-Industries.” 18. The proceedings in C.O. No.3 of 2011 would disclose that several Cross Objections, Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions were listed and heard together on several dates. Finally 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). 19. The State of Jharkhand has filed L.P.A. No.63 of 2011 against the said common order passed in W.P.(C) No.2141 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. 20. In W.P.(C) No.2141 of 2010, the Company produced various communications and recommendations vide memo dated 21st December 2006, 10th January 2007 and letter dated 8th February 2007 to demonstrate that its claim for interest subsidy for the financial years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 fell for due consideration before the competent authorities and in response to the aforesaid communications it furnished necessary documents vide letter dated 22nd March 2007. It was further pleaded before the writ Court that vide letter dated 27th May 2008 the decision of the State Level Committee was communicated to the company and in response thereof it furnished documents with letter dated 11th June 2008. Again in response of letter dated 19th July 2008, it furnished further documents on 14th October 2008. 21. As would appear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand in the 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. 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. 22. 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. 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.” 23. We may indicate here that in respect to the application for the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06 both parties are silent in the present proceedings. 24. With these observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.” 23. We may indicate here that in respect to the application for the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06 both parties are silent in the present proceedings. 24. 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 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. …...............................................” 27. 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. 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “30. …................................. 28. 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. 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.” 29. 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 11th June 2008 and 14th October 2008 the Company put forth a ground that there was some delay in submission of the application for the financial year 2003-04. In respect of the applications for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 the Company took a stand that those applications were submitted in time. 30. In the letter dated 14th October 2008, the Company has stated thus; “(2) Regarding Late Submission of Claim of Interest Application:-We would like to say that we have late submitted our Interest Subsidy Claim Application only for the Year 2003-04 due to Interest Payment Certificate from Bank and Tax Payment Certificate from Sales Tax Department could not be obtain in time. But, Interest Claim Subsidy for the year 2004-05 & 2005-06 has been submitted within due time i.e. 05/08/2005 and 26/09/2006. Copy of receiving the subsidy claim application and Chartered Accountants Scrutiny Report (S.K. Naredi & Co.) Point No.4 & 6 in which mentioned the date of application for interest subsidy is 05/08/2005 & 26/09/2006 is self explanatory that the subsidy claim application is submitted within the due time.” 31. As is evident from a glance at the aforesaid paragraph in the letter dated 14th October 2008 there is no whisper about delay caused in submission of the application for interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Mr. As is evident from a glance at the aforesaid paragraph in the letter dated 14th October 2008 there is no whisper about delay caused in submission of the application for interest subsidy for the financial years 2006-07 and 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 14th October 2008 it can be inferred that for similar reasons as was the reason for delay for the financial year 2003-04 the applications for the subsequent years were also not filed in time. 32. 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”. 33. 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. 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. The explanation for raising the claim by the Company for the financial year 2003-04 with delay was not accepted whereas for the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08 the writ Court accepted its explanation for late submission of the applications for interest subsidy. In these facts, we are of the opinion that on this 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. 34. L.P.A. No.63 of 2011 is allowed. 34. L.P.A. No.63 of 2011 is allowed. 35. C.O. No.3 of 2011 has been filed by the Company against the order dated 19th January 2011 by which the learned writ Court held that the delay of 16 months in submission of application for interest subsidy for the financial year 2003-04 has not been satisfactorily explained. 36. Besides challenge to Rule 4.3 (Gha), the present Cross Objection is filed for the following reason : “34. That it is further stated that the Cross-objector is also aggrieved by a portion of the judgment of the learned single Judge whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the alleged period of limitation of approximately 16 months for the financial year 2003-04 has been pleased to reject the claim of interest subsidy for the said year. Further, the Cross-objector had also claimed interest on the admissible amount of interest subsidy @ 19% per annum from the date the same was due till the date of its payment, but the learned single Judge has not granted relief in that regard to the Cross-objection. Hence, this Cross-objection.” 37. We may indicate that the other grounds raised in C.O No.3 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 two reasons viz. (i) 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, and (ii) other grounds with respect to which argument was not canvassed before the learned writ Court as would appear from a glance at the order dated 19th January 2011 cannot be raised by the Company in the present Cross Objection. If any of the relief(s) prayed for and ground(s) raised by the Company was not considered by the writ Court that issue shall be subject matter of review petition and cannot be agitated in the present Cross Objection. If any of the relief(s) prayed for and ground(s) raised by the Company was not considered by the writ Court that issue shall be subject matter of review petition and cannot be agitated in the present Cross Objection. We may further indicate that in the Cross Objection filed by the Company there is no whisper about raising any other plea, except those which are recorded in the order dated 19th January 2011, which according to the learned counsel for the Company were raised but not dealt with by the writ Court. 38. In view of our findings recorded in paragraph no.33, C.O No.3 of 2011 is allowed to the extent the writ Court's order does not deal with the sufficiency or otherwise of the cause for delay in filing the application for interest subsidy for the financial year 2003-04. 39. 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. 40. I.A. No.6599 of 2018 filed by the Company for bringing some documents on record stands disposed of.