(1.) The writ petition challenges a notification issued by the 1st respondent on 22.05.1998 setting out a policy of the State relating to grant of certain subsidies. This impugned policy dated 22.05.1998 made an alteration of the terms, which had been earlier issued on 17.04.1992. The petitioner's contention was that as per the 1992 policy, an investor was entitled to obtain 15% capital investment subsidy to the maximum of Rs. 15 lacs. In respect of 68 blocks as per the list given in Annexure-A, he qualified for obtaining such a benefit. The policy was applicable in respect of all investments made after 01.04.1992. The petitioner had applied for grant of subsidies in the year 1999 setting out an alleged investment of Rs. 1,13,97,107 and claimed 15% capital investment subject to however a maximum of Rs. 15 lacs. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to obtain Rs. 15 lacs.
(2.) Subsequent to the application seeking for subsidy, an inspection appears to have been carried out by the Project Manager, District Industries Centre and he had assessed the investment vis-a-vis what was applied for as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_333_PUNLR158_2010_1.html</FRM>
(3.) It could be noticed that the calculations are challenged only on the basis that the investments had been taken only upto 31.07.1997 as per the revised policy dated 22.05.1998 and the restriction of investments upto 31.07.1997 ought not to be applied to the petitioner, for the State is barred by promissory estoppel in making such restrictions when under the 1992 Policy, there was no cut off period mentioned for investments subsequent to 01.04.1992. The contention in defence by the respondents was that the 1992 Notification itself was superseded by a subsequent notification dated 22/29.08.1997 and the subsidies of the year 1992 could apply only to cases of investment upto 31.07.1997.