ORDER : 1. These writ petitions are decided by a common order, as the issue involved, is identical. 2. The facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19148/2017 (M/s.Quality Life Care Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is taken as a lead case. 3. The petitioner in the petition has pleaded that the State of Rajasthan introduced Rajashtan Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter read as ‘the Scheme of 2008’) to strengthen Institutional support of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise’s and as such, the scheme was notified in the Gazette Notification dated 13.02.2009 and the same was made operative with effect from 14.02.2008. 4. The petitioner-firm was manufacturing and also providing services of Diagnostic Centre, Pathology Laboratory and other related work. 5. The petitioner-company had also got ISO Certificate and in acquiring the said certificate, the Company had incurred total expenditure of Rs.2,37,485/-. The petitioner-company got a certificate regarding expenditure incurred by it in acquiring ISO Certificate through a Chartered Accountant. 6. The petitioner-company applied in the scheme of 2008 for grant of subsidy and the matter was placed before the Committee constituted under the Scheme and accordingly, after considering the eligibility of the petitioner-company, the petitioner-company was granted subsidy of Rs.2,00,000/-. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that the Sanctioning Authority issued the requisite cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-in favour of the petitioner-Company and the amount of subsidy given to the petitioner-company was duly appropriated by it as per the Scheme. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondents issued the impugned order dated 08.01.2016, whereby it was communicated that Auditor General during Audit found that the amount paid to the petitioner-company was irregular and as such, the petitioner-Company was asked to deposit the amount of Rs.2,42,257/-(Rs.1,72,425/- Principal + Rs.69,832/- interest). 9. The petitioner has pleaded that after issuance of impugned order dated 08.01.2016, the Additional Collector (Recovery), Jaipur issued a Notification dated 23.06.2017 under Rule 24 (Section 229) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter read as ‘the Act of 1956’) asking the petitioner to deposit the requisite amount, failing which the movable and immovable property of the Company was to be attached. 10. 10. The petitioner-company made a representation to the Authorities and submitted that they were entitled for subsidy as per Scheme of 2008 and due certificate was given with the investment by the petitioner-company and as such, the entire exercise of the respondents to effect recovery of subsidy amount, was legal and against the Scheme of 2008. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice has nowhere discussed as what was the objection, which was raised by the Audit Team and without communicating the exact reason about ineligibility or irregularity in getting the subsidy amount, the respondents could not have proceeded against the petitioners. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondents not only issued recovery notices against the petitioners of recovering the amount but simultaneously also initiated the proceedings under the Act of 1956. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that act of the respondents is highly arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were never made aware as what wrong has been committed by them and further, certificate which was required under the scheme were duly given to the Authorities and the Committee which was constituted under the Scheme after applying its due mind granted the amount of subsidy to the petitioners and as such, without any proper enquiry and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned actions could not have been taken. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance on a judgment passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in the case of Highway Tyre Retread Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2006 (1) WLC (Raj.) 764. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that reply to the writ petition has been filed and it has been specifically mentioned in the reply that the petitioners were not eligible to avail excess benefits of the Scheme and the Audit report dated 21.06.2013 of the Accountant General duly pointed out the lapses which were committed while granting subsidy to the petitioners. 16. Learned counsel submitted that the order which filed as Annex-R/1, was written by the Auditor General to the General Manager, DIC, Jaipur and referred to certain objections at point No.4 of the said letter. 17. 16. Learned counsel submitted that the order which filed as Annex-R/1, was written by the Auditor General to the General Manager, DIC, Jaipur and referred to certain objections at point No.4 of the said letter. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in certain cases namely one M/s.Ashoka Creators got initial certificate from Chartered Accountant where the application fee for Technical Consultancy Charge was paid amounting to Rs.68,605/-and later on the said company got another certificate from another Chartered Accountant, where expenses were said to be incurred of Rs.2,28,051/-. 18. Learned counsel submitted that since the scheme which was introduced by the State Government was only meant for giving the benefit of subsidy to the eligible units as per the expenses incurred by them and since the petitioners have failed to fulfill the said obligation, the respondents accordingly issued the recovery notices. 19. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the scheme was meant for honest investors and if exaggerated claim was placed before the Authorities and even if such approval was granted at one point of time, the same would not desist the Authorities from taking appropriate legal action against the petitioners who wrongly got the benefit of the subsidy scheme. 20. Learned counsel submitted that there is no estoppel against the respondents for claiming the amount paid to the petitioner as per the Scheme of 2008. 21. Learned counsel further submitted that if the petitioners have any grievance against the impugned orders, which have been issued by the respondents, the alternative mechanism provided under the Scheme is of filing an appeal and as such, this Court may not entertain the present writ petitions. 22. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 23. This Court finds that the Scheme of 2008 had prescribed the Authorities who were to grant benefit under the Scheme and State Level Authority Committee and District Level Committee were formed to the same effect. 24. 22. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 23. This Court finds that the Scheme of 2008 had prescribed the Authorities who were to grant benefit under the Scheme and State Level Authority Committee and District Level Committee were formed to the same effect. 24. This Court further finds that in the scheme, certain concessions were to be given as per Clause 7 (iii) for reimbursement of expenses subject to a limit of Rs.2 lakh or 10 times of the fee, whichever was lower, incurred for filing and obtaining Patent/ISO Certification during the period between 01.04.2007 to 31.12.2011 by an Industrial Enterprises or R&D Unit or Testing Laboratories were entitled for such reimbursement. 25. This Court finds that all the petitioners, at one point of time, were found eligible by the Committees, which have been constituted under the Scheme of 2008 and accordingly all the petitioners were granted benefit of reimbursement. 26. This Court finds that the impugned notice of recovery nowhere mentions exactly as what was the audit objection by the Auditor General in his audit report and only by narrating the phrase that irregularity was detected by the Audit Team, the impugned order was issued. 27. This Court finds that such kind of notice, which has been issued to the petitioners does not fulfill the requirement of providing adequate opportunity to the petitioners. The respondent or their appropriate Authorities, at-least, require to give specific instance and details in respect of allegations levelled against them and the respondents ought to have asked the petitioners, as in what manner, they had violated the terms and conditions of the scheme. 28. The mere mentioning of the fact that audit report had found the cases of the petitioners as irregular for grant of concession/subsidy, the same cannot be termed as a valid action taken by the respondents. 29. 28. The mere mentioning of the fact that audit report had found the cases of the petitioners as irregular for grant of concession/subsidy, the same cannot be termed as a valid action taken by the respondents. 29. This Court further finds that letter which has been annexed by the respondents with their reply, whereby certain examples have been given of one firm and other details have not been furnished as in what manner defaulting units were responsible for violating the terms of the scheme and as such, merely by getting a letter from the Auditor General, the respondents could not have proceeded further and if at all, they were interested in taking action against the respondents, the material which was available with the respondents, ought to have been supplied to the petitioners. 30. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that an alternative remedy was also available with the petitioner for filing an appeal, has been noted to be rejected. 31. This Court finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner is in respect of recovery being effected against them and there is no provision under the scheme, whereby the petitioners could have gone to the respondents challenging the orders issued by the Authorities as well as by the respondents asking the petitioners to deposit the amount along with interest. 32. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners were not entitled, as they did not furnish the correct record before the Authorities showing the requisite investment or expenses incurred by them and as such, the petitioners were required to satisfy the Authorities by filing the proper reply as only show cause notice was given to them, suffice it to say by this Court that if at all the respondents were intending to take action against the petitioners treating them ineligible or misrepresenting any fact before them with regard to investment made by them, it was necessary for the respondents to give proper notice to the petitioners and specific allegations should have been levelled as what violation has been done by them, of any provision of scheme or what kind of misrepresentation was made by them before the Authorities at the time of getting the concession. 33. 33. This Court finds that the respondents have acted arbitrarily with non application of mind while issuing the impugned orders and accordingly the impugned orders asking the petitioners to refund the amount along-with the interest, are set aside. 34. This Court, however, finds that if the respondents have some material with them and they want to take any action against the petitioners, they are always free to proceed in accordance with law and if any material is available with the respondents, wherein certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioners, the respondents if think proper to initiate action against the petitioners then the petitioners are required to be made aware of such allegation and requisite material is also required to be supplied to them. 35. Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand allowed and impugned orders of recovery are quashed and set aside. 36. A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition.