ORDER : SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J. 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- “1. Appropriate writ, Direction or Order in the nature of certiorari or other to quash the orders dated 04.08.2023 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Annexure P/), order dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure P/) passed by Respondent No.2 in appeal and order dated 4.10.2024 (Annexure P/) passed by Respondent No.1 in second appeal. 2. Appropriate writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other to direct the Respondents to remit the amount of subsidy at the rate of 40% of the total invested value of Rs.509 lakhs + 107 lakhs to the petitioner in terms of the M.P. MSME Protsahan Scheme and Policy of 2019. 3. Appropriate writ, Direction or Order in the nature of mandamus or other to direct the Respondents to pay interest @ 12% or any other rate as deemed fit on the amount of interest from the date the same was due till the date of payment. 4. Costs of this petition may be awarded, 5. Any other appropriate relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P/3), passed in a second appeal filed under Clause 20 of M.P. Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Protsahan Scheme, 2019 by the respondent No.1 – the Principal Secretary, M.S.M.E, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 4. Vide the aforesaid order, the respondent No.1 has affirmed the order dated 19.12.2023, passed in the first appeal by respondent No.2 the Commissioner, M.S.M.E., affirming the original order dated 04.08.2023, passed by respondent No.4, the General Manager, District Industry and Trade Centre, (DITC), District – Rajgarh, denying the benefit of subsidy under the Scheme of 2019. 5. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Limited Company, also registered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short 'the MSME Act of 2006'). The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of PVC pipe. According to the petitioner, in the year 2019, the State Government floated a Scheme known as „M.P. Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Protsahan Scheme, 2019? The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of PVC pipe. According to the petitioner, in the year 2019, the State Government floated a Scheme known as „M.P. Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Protsahan Scheme, 2019? (hereinafter referred to as „the Scheme of 2019?) in which certain subsidy was provided on account of expansion, diversification and technical up- gradation of the MSME unit. Acting upon the said scheme of 2019, the petitioner also made substantial investment to the tune of Rs.508 Lakhs towards the plant and machinery and Rs.107 Lakhs in factory building, thus, in all around Rs.6 Crores investments were made. 6. However, instead of the Scheme of 2019, the petitioner erroneously claimed the subsidy under a similar Scheme of 2017 before the District Level Committee by filing the application on 23.06.2020. The aforesaid application was rejected by the District Level Committed vide its order dated 21.10.2022 on the ground that the petitioner's capacity to manufacture has decreased in the year 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing first appeal under Rule 17 of the said Scheme of 2017 before the respondent No.2 on 14.11.2022, who dismissed the same on 27.01.2023 (Annexure P/11) on the same ground, affirming the order passed by the respondent No.4. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a second appeal on 30.01.2023, before the respondent No.1 Principal Secretary, MSME, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal, who disposed of the same vide order dated 13.04.2023 (Annexure P/17) holding that the orders passed by the authority was under the old Scheme of 2017, which was not applicable, and it ought to have been passed under the New Scheme of 2019. Thus, the matter was remanded back to the District Level Committee, directing it to decide the case afresh within 30 days. Pursuant to which, the petitioner again filed a fresh application on 24.04.2023, which was again dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2023, on the same ground, i.e., the petitioner falling short of the production which had decreased in the year 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The aforesaid order was again challenged by the petitioner in the first appeal before the respondent No.2, who also rejected the same on 19.12.2023, again on the same ground on which the earlier appeal under the Scheme of 2017 was rejected, holding that the production capacity of the petitioner has decreased after expansion as against their pre-installed capacity. The aforesaid order was again challenged by the petitioner in the first appeal before the respondent No.2, who also rejected the same on 19.12.2023, again on the same ground on which the earlier appeal under the Scheme of 2017 was rejected, holding that the production capacity of the petitioner has decreased after expansion as against their pre-installed capacity. The aforesaid order was again challenged by the petitioner in the second appeal before the respondent No.1, which also met with the same fate of rejection on 04.10.2024, affirming the order passed in the first appeal, and being aggrieved of the same, the present petition has been filed. 7. Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Scheme of 2019 (Annexure P/19), namely, paras 3.12 and 4.11 of the Scheme, which provide for the definition of pre-installed capacity ( iwoZ LFkkfir {kerk ) and the condition that in the case of expansion and diversification, the scheme can be availed only with the condition that there should be no reduction in pre-installed capacity. Counsel has submitted that the respondents have clearly erred in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit under the aforesaid Scheme, and has erred in holding that since the average of the petitioner's actual production for the last three years is less than its installed capacity, and since the petitioner has shown reduction in the production, hence, it is not entitled claim any capital subsidy. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondents have clearly erred in interpreting the provisions of the Scheme of 2019, and hence the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the petition be allowed. 8. Shri Shrivastava has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post, only to avail the benefit of the scheme, to which he was rightfully entitled to, however, since the petitioner did not agree to the illegal expectations of the officers of the respondents, they, with mala fide intentions kept the matter pending for no justifiable reasons, and there was no reason also to remand the matter on the ground of application being filed under the old scheme of 2017 when both the schemes were identical. It is also submitted that the adverse orders have been passed only with a view to harass the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that the amount of subsidy, which the petitioner is entitled to receive, should also be given with interest @ 12% per annum. 9. On the other hand, the petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Rajwardhan Gawde, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, as the petitioner has not interpreted the scheme in its proper perspective, and the respondents have also relied upon Clause 3.12 of the scheme which provides for eligibility for claiming the subsidy. So far as the mala fide on the part of the respondents is concerned, counsel has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the same, and merely delay in deciding the petitioner's claim, cannot be a ground to claim interest on the ground of mala fide intentions. 10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Before proceeding with the rival submissions, it would be apt to refer to the relevant conditions of the Scheme of 2019, on which the parties have relied upon, the relevant excerpts of Scheme of 2019 are being reproduced as under:- ( English translation of the same) Existing industrial unit means an industrial unit which has started commercial production prior to 01.10.2019 or a new industrial unit which has undergone expansion/diversification/technological up- gradation during the effective period of the policy. ( English translation of the same) Previous installed capacity means the average of annual production of the three financial years immediately preceding the year in which fresh capital investment for expansion/diversification is started by the existing industrial unit or the installed capacity at the time of commercial production date of the existing industrial unit, whichever is higher. Xxxxxxxxxxxx ( English translation of the same) An existing medium scale industrial unit investing Rs. 100 lakh or more in machinery and plant for expansion/diversification/technological upgradation will be eligible for assistance/facilities at par with a new industrial unit. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ( English translation of the same) In cases of expansion/diversification, the above facility will be provided to the units with the condition that there will be no reduction in the previously installed capacity.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. While referring to the aforesaid conditions, the impugned order has been passed denying the subsidy to the petitioner. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ( English translation of the same) In cases of expansion/diversification, the above facility will be provided to the units with the condition that there will be no reduction in the previously installed capacity.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. While referring to the aforesaid conditions, the impugned order has been passed denying the subsidy to the petitioner. So far as the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is concerned, the same reads as under:- (Emphasis supplied) 13. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Scheme vis-à-vis the finding recorded in the impugned order, it is found that the petitioner's claim for subsidy has been rejected only on the ground that after the expansion, the petitioner's installed capacity, which, according to the respondents is its actual annual production, is less than the earlier installed capacity, hence, it is not entitled to claim the benefit of subsidy on the basis of Clauses 3.12 and 4.11 of the Scheme of 2019. It is also found that the petitioner's installed capacity has been increased to 21900 metric tonnes as against the pre-installed capacity of 13200 metric tonnes, whereas the production before expansion with effect from 28.04.2019 was 6984.158 metric tonnes, and after expansion it has come down to 1976.235 metric tonnes. 14. On careful perusal of Clause 3.12, this Court finds that it provides for the definition of previously installed capacity and means the average of annual production of the three financial years immediately preceding the year in which fresh capital investment for expansion/diversification is started by the existing industrial unit or the installed capacity at the time of commercial production date of the existing industrial unit, whichever is higher. 15. Whereas Clause 4.11 provides that in the cases of expansion and diversification, the facility of subsidy can be available on the condition of no reduction in the earlier installed capacity, but the respondents have taken it to mean that actual production capacity of the unit must not be less than the earlier installed capacity. It does not take an expert to conclude that the installed capacity and the actual production are two different aspect of the Scheme. In other words, Clause 4.11 does not provide that the actual production of the unit shall not be less than its installed capacity, and in fact, the actual production has nothing to do with the condition of providing the subsidy. 16. In other words, Clause 4.11 does not provide that the actual production of the unit shall not be less than its installed capacity, and in fact, the actual production has nothing to do with the condition of providing the subsidy. 16. Clause 3.6(b) of Scheme of 2017 reads as under:- 17. In the considered opinion of this Court the respondents have erred in interpreting the aforesaid provisions by relating it to the actual production of the unit, which was not the import of the aforesaid clauses. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 04.08.2023, 19.12.2023 and 04.10.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and are liable to be, and are hereby quashed, and respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner within a period of three months. 18. On perusal of the record, it is found that there was no apparent reason existed to deny the benefit of the scheme to the petitioner, and it appears that the respondents have deliberately delayed the matter and in the earlier Appeal No.755/1135391/2023/A- 73 dated 13.04.2023, the petitioner was also relegated to file a fresh application under the Scheme of 2019, whereas the petitioner has filed both these Schemes on record, and there is absolutely no difference between the provision of subsidy and definition also in the Scheme of 2017 as also 2019, and it appears that only with a view to further delay the matter, the petitioner was again asked to file a fresh application under the Scheme of 2019, with the result that it was rejected on the same ground, which was adopted by the respondents while rejecting his claim under the Scheme of 2017. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot shun their responsibility, and their duty, which they owe towards the investors. Hence, a penal interest @ 6% shall be paid to the petitioner on the amount, which he is liable to be paid by the respondents. 19. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months. 20. It is clarified that the amount of penal interest, as aforesaid may also be recovered by the State from the erring officer/s who are responsible for the imposition of the same, if so advised, after following due procedure and after giving due opportunity of hearing to them. 21. 20. It is clarified that the amount of penal interest, as aforesaid may also be recovered by the State from the erring officer/s who are responsible for the imposition of the same, if so advised, after following due procedure and after giving due opportunity of hearing to them. 21. It is also observed that the State Govt. would do well if it also provides in the Schemes of subsidies to the small or medium scale industries, about the time frame within which such claims are to be finally decided. 22. With the aforesaid, present petition stands allowed and disposed of.