JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. 1. Heard Dr. B.P. Todi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. A. Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the letter dated 09.07.2021, issued by the Deputy Director of Tea Development, Tea Board of India, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of subsidy/financial assistance for the financial year 2015-2016 under the Special Purpose Tea Fund Scheme (SPTF in short) and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme of Tea Board of India, has been rejected on account of non-completion of uprooting of tea bushes within the financial year in which the application was submitted (i.e. 31.03.2016). 3. Briefly put, the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at Sir R.N.M. House, 3rd Flow, 3B, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata and at Ledo in the District of Tinsukia, Assam. The petitioner is represented through its Director, Mr. Nirmit Lohia. 4. The Central Government introduced scheme for the Tea Board, namely-Tea Development and Promotion Scheme, for implementation during the XII Five Year Plan (2012-2017) for extending subsidy/financial incentives/grant-in- aid for various activities/components carried out by different stakeholders for improving the Production, Productivity and Quality of Tea in India and Promotion of Indian Tea in the International market and Research and Development. One of the seven components of the said Scheme, being Component 1, is Plantation Development with a sub-component, namely, Replantation Replacement Planting Rejuvenation of Old Tea Bushes, with the objective to increase production and filed productivity and quality of Tea by encouraging replantation, replacement planting, rejuvenation pruning, extension planting, irrigation and mechanization. 5. Under the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme, the Replantation activity involves uprooting and replanting of tea bushes, for which the Scheme provides a subsidy of 30% of the unit cost of replanting, to be calculated at the specified unit cost in rupees per hectare. The Scheme provides for the subsidy in 2 (two) installments, where the 1st installment of subsidy is due immediately on completion of replanting and after receiving satisfactory first post planting nd Inspection Report, while the 2 installment is due on completion of 24 months nd from the date of completion of replanting and after receiving satisfactory 2 post planting Inspection Report. 6. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid SPTF and Tea Development and Promotion Scheme, the petitioner submitted an application dated 12.12.2015, which was received by the Office of the Development Officer, Tea Board of India, Sub Regional Office, Ledo on 30.12.2015, for approval of grant of subsidy under the Scheme for uprooting and replantation in Section 12 (for 11.89 Hectares) and Section 14 (for 8.05 Hectares) of the petitioner Ledo Tea Estate. 7. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to subsidy in respect of the uprooting and replanting carried out in Sections 12 and 14 at its Tea Estate during the Accounting Year 2015-16 under the aforesaid Scheme, specifically under Component 1, i.e. Plantation Development, Sub-component, being, Replantation, Replacement Planting and Rejuvenation of Old Tea Bushes. As the Scheme permitted only one application per garden for each financial year, the petitioner submitted a single application covering both Section 12 and Section 14 of the petitioner Ledo Tea Estate. 8. It is contended that pursuant to the application of the petitioner for approval of subsidy under the Scheme, the respondent- Tea Board of India conducted an inspection of the petitioner’s Ledo Tea Estate on 20.01.2016 and on being satisfied with the requirements, the Tea Board issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) vide letter dated 29.01.2016, thereby granting approval for commencement of the uprooting operation for a total of 19.94 Hectares in Sections 12 and 14 of the Ledo Tea Estate. The NOC and approval were granted pertaining to uprooting and replanting activity. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the No Objection Certificate (NOC), the activity of uprooting in Section 12 commenced on 15.02.2016 and was completed on 01.03.2016, while the activity in Section No. 14 commenced on 02.03.2016 and was completed on 13.03.2016.The petitioner thereafter submitted all relevant documents to the respondent authorities in support of its application for processing of its claim for subsidy/financial assistance. Despite satisfactorily completion of the field work for replantation/replacement and uprooting in terms of the Scheme, the respondents kept the matter pending for a period of 3 (three) years without taking any decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy under the Scheme. Despite satisfactorily completion of the field work for replantation/replacement and uprooting in terms of the Scheme, the respondents kept the matter pending for a period of 3 (three) years without taking any decision on the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy under the Scheme. Subsequently, after a lapse of 5 (five) years, the respondent authorities, by the impugned letter dated 09.07.2021, rejected the claim of the petitioner for subsidy/financial assistance under the SPTF and Tea Development and Promotion Scheme on the ground that uprooting had not completed within the financial year in which the application was submitted, i.e. 31.03.2016, and accordingly refused to entertain the petitioner’s application, treating the same as cancelled. 10. Dr. Todi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was a clerical error committed by the staff of petitioner Ledo Tea Estate which wrongly reflected the completion date for uprooting at Section 14 as 13.04.2016 instead of 13.03.2016. He submits that the petitioner had no knowledge of the clerical error, which was incorrectly entered in the Register with regard to completion of uprooting activity. The petitioner became aware of the said error only upon receipt of the impugned letter dated 09.07.2021 from the respondents, after a lapse of 5 (five) years. Having no alternative, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities informing the clerical error entered in the Register and requested to visit the garden and conduct field inspection to re-verify the facts. However, no response was received from the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the actual date of completion in fact was on 13.03.2016, which has been wrongly recorded as 13.04.2016, purely a clerical error, the petitioner ought not to be made to suffer on account of the same. 11. Dr. Todi, learned Senior Counsel, further submits that there has been no willful laches on the part of the petitioner and the error in recording the date of completion of the uprooting activity in the Register as the same was purely clerical error and for such inadvertent clerical error, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. He submits that it is wholly unreasonable to assume that the petitioner would have waited for more than a month merely to uproot 1,300 tea bushes, when in the span of ten days, i.e. from 02.03.2016 to 12.03.2016, the petitioner had successfully uprooted more than 17,400 tea bushes. He submits that it is wholly unreasonable to assume that the petitioner would have waited for more than a month merely to uproot 1,300 tea bushes, when in the span of ten days, i.e. from 02.03.2016 to 12.03.2016, the petitioner had successfully uprooted more than 17,400 tea bushes. This demonstrates that the entry of 13.04.2016 as the completion date was a clerical mistake, which the respondent authorities failed to appreciate or re-verify, and on that basis erroneously rejected the petitioner’s claim for subsidy/financial assistance under the Scheme by holding that the uprooting was not completed within the financial year 2015–2016 (i.e. 31.03.2016). 12. It is submitted that the respondent authorities ought to have withdrawn the impugned letter dated 09.07.2021 and granted the petitioner the subsidy claimed under the Scheme for the Financial Year 2015-16, thereby extending the benefit of the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme of Tea Board of India. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that at all material point of time, the petitioner was ready and willing to undergo re-inspection in order to establish the correct date of completion of the uprooting activity, which had been wrongly recorded in the Register due to a clerical error. However, the respondent authorities failed to initiate any such re-inspection of the petitioner Ledo Tea Estate to ascertain and verify the true facts. 13. Dr. Todi, learned senior counsel submits that Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, from time to time, formulated various schemes extending subsidies for the development of different industries across different regions. One such Scheme is the present ‘Tea Development and Promotion Scheme’ formulated by Tea Board of India specifically for the Tea Industries. The principle and objectives underlying the grant of subsidy under the Tea Development Scheme are pari materia to other Schemes framed under Industrial Policy for promoting general industrialization in any region of the country, viz., Central Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (providing subsidy on investments made in plant and machinery), Central Interest Subsidy Scheme (providing subsidy on interest paid on bank loans), Central Insurance Subsidy Scheme (providing subsidy on premium paid for insurance policy), Central Transport Subsidy Scheme (providing subsidy on transportation expenses for raw materials and finished products), etc. 14. Placing reliance of the case of Under Secretary Ministry of Industries & Ors. Vs. Marchon Textile Inds (P) Ltd. & Anr. 14. Placing reliance of the case of Under Secretary Ministry of Industries & Ors. Vs. Marchon Textile Inds (P) Ltd. & Anr. , (2005) 10 SCC 554 , he submits that, although dealt with Central Outright Grant/Subsidy Scheme, 1971 which was promulgated to encourage setting up of industrial units in selected backward areas, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, schemes floated by the State releasing grant of subsidy for industrial units have a benevolent and public purpose to achieve, which but for the State encouragement would continue to remain backward and industrial investment will not be attracted. It was held that such schemes have to be construed with practical and pragmatic approach so as to achieve and not to frustrate the purpose sought to be achieved, and the applications should not be dealt with a hypertechnical approach or in a pedantic manner. Applications substantially in order and satisfying formalities expected of the scheme, should be allowed with an opportunity to cure the defects which are not of substantial nature or are capable of being cures so that the deserving units are not left out of the scheme. 15. He submits that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marchon Textiles Inds (P) Ltd. (supra) has been consistently followed by this Court in the matters pertaining to different subsidy schemes, i.e. Transport Subsidy Scheme, in the following decisions: (i) J. Tariang Vs. Union of India & Ors ., (2011) 3 NEJ 434 (ii) Union of India Vs. J. Tariang , (2013) 2 NEJ 224 (DB) (iii) Sri Balaji Cement Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India , (2018) 2 NEJ 766 16. He submits that a similar view was taken by Division Bench of this Court in Ishwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , (2020) 2 NEJ 1 , wherein it was held that Central Interest Subsidy Scheme was floated to give incentive package for stimulating development of industries in North Eastern Region, where the scheme for payment of subsidy was applied to all, and once a person fell within the parameters of the scheme, the respondents by virtue of the scheme were bound to release subsidy in favour of the investors. It was also held that subsidy is not a largesse that being given by the respondents, rather every person who complies with the conditions of the scheme becomes entitled to payment of subsidy. 17. Dr. Todi, learned Senior Counsel submits that in the present case, the out of 46,360 bushes, only 1,300 bushes were shown to have been uprooted on 13.04.2016, which is after 31.03.2016, whereas, the petitioner had satisfactorily completed the field work for replanting, replacement and uprooting of tea bushes and therefore entitled to receive the subsidy in terms of the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme. However, the Respondents have arbitrarily denied and rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the basis of uprooting having been completed beyond the financial year. Such requirement cannot be treated as a substantial or an inflexible rule and may be relaxed to extend the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned letter dated 09.07.2021 may be set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to extend the benefit of subsidy/financial assistance to the petitioner under the Special Purpose Tea Fund (SPTF) and the Tea Development and promotion scheme of Tea Board of India. 18. On the other hand, Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents, submits that under the Scheme, the schedule of disbursement for replantation activity is in two instalments, subject to receipt of satisfactory inspection reports. He submits that the commitment of the Board will become binding only after issuance of approval-cum-sanction letter, which follows scrutiny of the post-operative inspection report. Accordingly, conformity with the guidelines in their entirety is a condition precedent for sanction and disbursement. In the instant case, the inspection report was not found to be satisfactory in view of the violation of the Activity Specific scheme guidelines, namely Clause C.1.1A(3), which mandates that uprooting must be completed by 31st March of the financial year in which the application has been submitted. 19. He submits that the eligibility conditions are specified in Component 1, Plantation Development, under Clause B, at point number 11, which stipulates that only one application per garden in a financial year will be entertained for consideration of subsidy for a particular activity. 19. He submits that the eligibility conditions are specified in Component 1, Plantation Development, under Clause B, at point number 11, which stipulates that only one application per garden in a financial year will be entertained for consideration of subsidy for a particular activity. However, if an applicant intends to submit an additional application for the same activity, same may be considered by clubbing it together with the first application, subject to fulfillment of all other conditions of the Scheme. It emphasized that the area applied for would be eligible for subsidy subject to fulfillment of all other conditions of the scheme. 20. Mr. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, further submits that upon completion of replanting, the first inspection was carried out on 18.03.2019 in presence of the General Manager of Ledo Tea Estate and as per which, the dates of commencement and completion of uprooting in respect of Section 12 were from 15.02.2016 to 01.03.2016, and in respect of Section No. 14 were from 02.03.2016 to 13.04.2016. He submits that under the Scheme guidelines, uprooting for the applied area was required to be completed by 31.03.2016 and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of subsidy under the Scheme. 21. He further submits that if there had indeed been a clerical error, the date of uprooting ought to have been corrected and the supporting records produced before the Board’s inspecting officer at the time of the first inspection on 18.03.2019. Therefore, since no such correction or clarification was made, the Board proceeded strictly in accordance with the Scheme guidelines. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner was not considered as the uprooting was recorded to have been completed beyond 31.03.2016. The dates of uprooting were duly recorded in the first inspection report, which was signed by both the Board’s officer and the General Manager of petitioner Ledo Tea Estate. 22. Mr. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, submits that the Scheme is funded out of public funds and therefore the respondent Board is duty bound to ensure strict conformity with the Scheme guidelines in their entirety. He submits that the petitioner’s General Manager, who had signed the inspection report, had every opportunity to produce the records during the first inspection before the Board’s inspection officer to demonstrate that the st uprooting had been completed by 31 March. He submits that the petitioner’s General Manager, who had signed the inspection report, had every opportunity to produce the records during the first inspection before the Board’s inspection officer to demonstrate that the st uprooting had been completed by 31 March. The verification of records for the purpose of grant of subsidy was already conducted by the Board at the time of first inspection, during which all the relevant dates, including those of uprooting, rehabilitation and re-plantation were duly verified, documented and confirmed by the signatures of both the Board’s office and the General Manager of the petitioner Ledo Tea Estate. Accordingly, he submits that the Board had acted fairly and in strict compliance with the Scheme guidelines, whereas the petitioner has failed to establish even a prima facie case in its favour and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 23. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 24. The Government of India conveyed its approval for the Tea Board’s Scheme, namely, “Tea Development and Promotion Scheme” for implementation during the XII Five Year Plan (2012-2017). The scheme comprises several major components covering the broad areas of the Tea Board’s operation, namely, Plantation Development, Quality Upgradation and Product Diversification, Market Promotion, Research and Development, Welfare of Tea Garden Workforce, Small Growers Development and Programme for Tea Regulation for overall protection, growth & sustenance of Indian Tea. 25. For implementation of the development and promotional scheme, specific modalities have been framed. The components primarily comprises extending subsidy, financial incentives, grant-in-aid for various activities carried out by different stakeholders for improving the Production, Productivity and Quality of Tea in India and Promotion of Indian Tea in the international market and Research and Development. 26. The present case relates to component 1, i.e. Plantation Development, which consists 5 (five) sub-components, namely, (i) Replantation Replacement Planting Rejuvenation of old tea bushes, (ii) New Planting, (iii) Organic Tea, (iv) Irrigation, and (v) Field Mechanization. 27. Clauses 7 & 8 of the modalities for implementation provides which is reproduced herein under: “7. 26. The present case relates to component 1, i.e. Plantation Development, which consists 5 (five) sub-components, namely, (i) Replantation Replacement Planting Rejuvenation of old tea bushes, (ii) New Planting, (iii) Organic Tea, (iv) Irrigation, and (v) Field Mechanization. 27. Clauses 7 & 8 of the modalities for implementation provides which is reproduced herein under: “7. For carrying out pre-approval inspections in time, the applicants will submit their application to the nearest field office of Tea Board, at least 30 days before the commencement of any field activity i.e. Uprooting/Rejuvenation pruning/planting & uprooting, procurement of equipments, in case of Replanting/Rejuvenation pruning & consolidation/Extension Planting/replacement planting/Irrigation and mechanization. Applications submitted after commencement of field work will not be considered & will be summarily rejected. 8. Field operations viz., Uprooting/Rejuvenation pruning/Extension Planting/planting & Uprooting in case of Replanting/Rejuvenation pruning & consolidation/replacement planting/Extension planting respectively or procurement of equipment’s under irrigation and field mechanization activity shall be commenced by the applicants only after receiving the NOC (No Objection Certificate) issued by the concerned field offices, after carrying out pre-approval inspection. However, pre-approval inspection is not required in respect of Field mechanization activity. NOC under field mechanization shall be issued after the receipt of application by the field office and fulfillment of the other boards criteria within 30 days. However the applicant may commence field activities after 30 days, if the pre-approval inspection and or the issuance of NOC is being delayed by the Tea Board Office due to reasons beyond their control.” 28. Under Clause C.1.1.A relating to Replanting/Replacement Planting provides st that the uprooting activity must be completed by 31 March of the financial year in which the application has been submitted. The replacement planting is required to be completed within 6 (six) months from the date of issuance of NOC. Sub-Clause 11 of Clause C further stipulates that replanting in all cases shall be completed within 36 months from the date of completion of uprooting. In cases of phased uprooting against the replacement planting, the activity is also required to be completed within 36 months from the date of completion of replacement planting. 29. Perusal of the modalities for implementation of the Special Purpose Tea Fund (SPTF) and the Tea Development and Promotion scheme of Tea Board of India reflects that the stakeholders are entitled to grant of subsidy/financial assistance under different components. 29. Perusal of the modalities for implementation of the Special Purpose Tea Fund (SPTF) and the Tea Development and Promotion scheme of Tea Board of India reflects that the stakeholders are entitled to grant of subsidy/financial assistance under different components. As noted above, the present case pertains to component 1, i.e. Plantation Development. For availing the financial assistance under this component, the modality specifically provides that the st uprooting activity must be completed by 31 March of the financial year in which the application has been submitted. 30. The petitioner submitted its application before the Development Officer, Tea Board of India under the Scheme for grant of subsidy/financial assistance in respect of the component, i.e. uprooting and replanting, for Sections 12 & 14 in the prescribed form vide letter dated 12.12.2015, which was received on 30.12.2015. The respondent authorities vide communication dated 29.01.2016, issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the Tea Board’s Special Purpose Tea Fund (SPTF) and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme for the aforesaid activity of uprooting and replanting, with a note clarifying that the NOC was being issued only with the objective to enable the petitioner to commence and complete the field work within the prescribed time schedule, without any financial commitment on the part of the Tea Board at that stage. After lapse of more than 5 (five) years, the respondent authorities, vide impugned letter dated 09.07.2021, rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy/financial assistant under the SPTF and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme on the ground that the uprooting was not completed within the financial year in which the application was submitted. 31. Inspection Report clearly reveals that the uprooting of the tea bushes had commenced on 16.02.2016 and 02.03.2016 and was completed on 01.03.2016 and 13.04.2016 in respect of Sections 12 & 14, respectively. The rehabilitation programme in respect of the uprooted areas commenced on 21.03.2016 and 21.04.2016 and was completed on 13.03.2016 and 13.04.2016. The replanting of the uprooted areas commenced on 16.04.2018 and 22.10.2018 and was completed on 19.06.2018 and 16.12.2018 in respect of Sections 12 & 14. 32. The rehabilitation programme in respect of the uprooted areas commenced on 21.03.2016 and 21.04.2016 and was completed on 13.03.2016 and 13.04.2016. The replanting of the uprooted areas commenced on 16.04.2018 and 22.10.2018 and was completed on 19.06.2018 and 16.12.2018 in respect of Sections 12 & 14. 32. A perusal of the records clearly indicate that although the uprooting of the tea bushes in respect of both Sections 12 and 14 commenced on 15.02.2016 and 02.03.2016, same were completed on 01.03.2016 and 13.04.2016, which is beyond the permissible time frame of the financial year during which the application had been submitted. However, the replanting of the uprooted bushes appears to have been carried out within the permissible time. 33. In the case of Marchon Textiles Inds (P) Ltd. (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held the schemes floated by the State releasing grant of subsidy for industrial units to be set up in certain selected backward districts/areas have a benevolent and public purpose to achieve, and that is, to promote the growth of industries in such districts/areas which but for the State encouragement would continue to remain backward and the industrial investment will not be attracted to such areas. Such schemes have to be construed with practical and pragmatic approach so as to achieve and not frustrate the purpose sought to be achieved. The benefit of the scheme ought to be allowed, if it can be done. The applications should not be dealt with a hypertechnical approach or in a pedantic manner. If the application filed before the cut-off date is substantially in order and satisfies the formalities expected of the scheme, then an opportunity should be allowed to the applicant to cure the defects which are not of substantial nature or are capable of being cured so that the deserving units are not left out of the scheme. 34. In the present case, it appears that the requirement of completion of uprooting is mandated to be within the financial year in which the application has been submitted under the modalities for implementation of the SPTF and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme for grant of subsidy/financial assistance to avail such financial assistance under the scheme. 34. In the present case, it appears that the requirement of completion of uprooting is mandated to be within the financial year in which the application has been submitted under the modalities for implementation of the SPTF and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme for grant of subsidy/financial assistance to avail such financial assistance under the scheme. Although the replantation may have been carried out within the permitted time, the uprooting appears to have been completed on 13.04.2016 which is beyond the permitted time line, though the petitioner vehemently submitted that it was just clerical error. In such circumstances, in my considered view it may not be appropriate to ignore the deviation, even if the same is sought to be projected by the petitioner as clerical error. Nevertheless, considering the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marchon Textile Inds. (P) Ltd. (supra) that the schemes have to be construed with practical and pragmatic approach so as to achieve and not to frustrate the purpose sought to be achieved and not be dealt with hyper-technical approach or in a pedantic manner, rather on practical and pragmatic approach, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities would be required to consider the claim of the petitioner although the petitioner has failed to show that it has completed the uprooting within the specified time limit. 35. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marchon Textile Inds. (P) Ltd. (supra) that the schemes have to be construed with practical and pragmatic approach so as to achieve and not to frustrate the purpose sought to be achieved without dealing with the same with hyper-technical approach or in a pedantic manner, rather on practical and pragmatic approach, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities would be required to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for grant of subsidy/financial assistance to the petitioner under the Special Purpose Tea Fund and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme of Tea Board of India, as the application has been filed within time. 36. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for granting subsidy/financial assistance to the petitioner under the Special Purpose Tea Fund (SPTF) and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme of Tea Board of India. 36. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for granting subsidy/financial assistance to the petitioner under the Special Purpose Tea Fund (SPTF) and the Tea Development and Promotion Scheme of Tea Board of India. In the event, the petitioner is found to have complied substantially and any deviation is curable, claim of the petitioner for subsidy/financial assistance may be granted. Consequently the impugned letter dated 09.07.2021, by the Deputy Director of Tea Development, Tea Board of India is set aside and quashed. 37. Writ petition, accordingly stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own cost(s).