The judgment established the importance of interpreting benevolent schemes with a practical and pragmatic approach, emphasizing the consideration of applications filed before the cut-off date for substantial compliance with the scheme's requirements.

ORDER

1. The Ministry of Industrial Development, Government of India, New Delhi promulgated Scheme No. F-7(15)179-IC entitled the Central Outright Grant/Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for industrial units to be set up in selected backward districts/areas (hereinafter called "the Scheme" for short). The object of promulgating the Scheme, as set out in the preamble to the Scheme itself, is to encourage setting up industrial units in certain selected backward districts/areas with a view to promote the growth of industry there and to release Central grant or subsidy for the purpose. The Scheme contemplates its implementation through the State GovernmentslUnion Territory Administrations, to be worked on a reimbursement basis, except in case of Union Territories without legislatures. The initial period appointed for the availability of the Scheme expired but it was extended from time to time. The last of such extensions was dated 3-5-1988 whereunder the Scheme was to remain in operation up to 30-9-1988. It appears that there was some controversy as to how and in what manner the cut-off date of 30-9-1988 was to be applied. The dispute travelled up to this Court and came to be decided vide order dated 5-12-1995 in Umesh Textiles v. Union of Indial. The Court having invited the comments of the Ministry of Industry decided that all the applications filed up to 30-9-1988 should be considered for grant of Central investment subsidy provided the said applications were complete in terms of the Scheme dated 26-8-1971, as modified from time to time.

2. M/s Adilon Synthetics (for short "Adilon"), a partnership firm, which had proposed to establish an industry at Masat, Silvassa in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, had made an application claiming benefit of the Scheme. The application was filed and registered on 18-9-1987. Adilon was having Industrial Plot No. 19-A in the Government Industrial Estate at Masat, Silvassa. It is not disputed that the said industrial estate was an area covered by the Scheme and entitled to benefits thereunder. Adilon was a small-scale industrial unit. On 14-7-1988 M/s Marchon Textile Industries Private Limited ("Marchon" for short), the respondent herein, a public limited company purchased the industrial unit from Adilon and stepped into its shoes. Marchon is a medium-size industry. On 30-9-1988, Marchon also moved an application of its own for registration under the Scheme. The benefit claimed by Marchon was to some extent more than the benefit which was claimed by its predecessor Adilon for the reason that Adilon happened to be a small-scale industrial unit while Marchon is a medium-size industry.

3. The appellants refused to allow the benefit of the Scheme to the respondent. The respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court. The High Court formed an opinion that the requirement of the Scheme was one of registration before the cut-off date and as Adilon had got itself registered prior to the cut-off date the benefit of the Scheme could not be denied to the respondent as successor of Adilon. So far as the controversy as to whether the benefit claimed in the application dated 30-9-1988 by Marchon could be allowed or only the one claimed in the application made by Adilon was allowable, the High Court formed an opinion that at least to the extent of the benefits which were claimed by Adilon in its application, the same could not have been denied to the respondent. To that extent, the writ petition was allowed and the rule was made absolute by the High Court.

4. However, the respondent filed a review petition before the High Court pointing out to the fact that the respondent had itself moved its own application on 30-9-1988 and once the application was filed before the cut- off date as appointed by the order of the Supreme Court, the same was entitled to consideration if it was complete in terms of the Scheme. The d review petition was allowed by the High Court by making "an observation by w