JUDGMENT :

Vikram Nath, J.

These appeals, by special leave, assail the correctness of the judgment and orders dated 27.01.2010 and 24.09.2010 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, respectively in Civil W.P. No. 14847 of 2009 and C.M. No. 3144 of 2010 in the Writ Petition.

2. The matter pertains to exemption from payment of Market fee and Rural Development fee sought by the Respondent herein. The Respondent company was incorporated on 26.12.2006 and set up a spinning unit at Bathinda for manufacturing cotton yarn out of raw cotton. Thereafter, the Respondent company applied to the Appellant for grant of exemption from paying Market fee and Rural Development fee in terms of the Industrial Policy, 2003[2003 Policy, hereinafter] and claimed to be similarly situated as M/s Partap Furane Pvt. Ltd., which is also engaged in the manufacturing of cotton yarn, and was granted exemption from payment of Market fee.

3. Respondent filed Civil W.P. No. 14847 of 2009 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana seeking such exemption. Therein, in response to the notice issued, the Counsel for the State produced the minutes of meetings of the Empowered Committee held under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister, Punjab, on 17.12.2009, which has been reproduced as follows:

"i). Integrated Cotton Ginning and Spinning Units which have not sought the status of Mega Projects would be eligible for incentives under the Industrial Policy, 2003, including exemption from payment of market fee as per Para 11.4.2(i). This would be for a period of ten years from the date of issue of the notification.

a. Units that have availed of the benefit under the Mega Projects Scheme but have now sought benefits under the 2003 Policy e.g. Cotton Units seeking exemption from market fee, would be eligible for incentives and concessions only under one specific package i.e. ether the Industrial Policy of 2003 or the standard package of the incentives of Mega Projects finalized in November, 2007 as per their choice."

4. The High Court, vide impugned order dated 27.01.2010, dismissed the Writ Petition in the following manner:

"xxx xxx

4. Learned counsel for the State also states that Market Fee will also cover Rural Development Fee and further action as per above decision will be taken within one month.

5. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage.

6. Dismissed as not pressed."

5. Thereafter, the Appellant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid statement made by the Counsel on instructions, filed C.M. No. 3144 of 2010 in CWP No. 14847 of 2009 seeking modification in order dated 27.01.2010. In the application, the Appellant stated that the earlier statement made by the counsel for the State, on the instructions from the officers of the Industry department, stating that the Market fee would also cover the Rural Development fee, was not factually and legally correct. It was further argued that Market fee was collected under the provisions of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961[1961 Act, hereinafter] whereas the Rural Development fee is collected under the Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987[1987 Act, hereinafter]. Therefore, both the fees being separate, decision on exemption from Market fee did not automatically apply to Rural Development fee.

6. In reply to the application, Respondent submitted that even according to the Agriculture Department of the Government of Punjab, exemption from Market fee automatically covers Rural Development fee and annexed letters dated 09.10.2001, 28.08.2001 and 10.09.2001 to supply weight to their arguments. The High Court, vide order dated 24.09.2010, observed that the abovementioned letters clearly support the stand earlier taken on behalf of the State and thus, there is no ground for modification sought. The application was dismissed accordingly. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant State is before us.

7. The core issue of the matter boils down to whether the exemption from payment of Mark