1. The present Writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to declare that the respondents (Union of India in the Ministry of Food Processing Industries and the Industrial Development Commissioner, Department of Industry, Govt, of Bihar) are not justified in denying the petitioner, the grant envisaged under the assistance to Food Processing Industries as declared by Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Govt, of India and for a direction to the respondents to disburse the grant to the petitioner as promised under the said policy.

2. The respondents in the Writ application are Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Joint Secretary of the said Ministry and the Sec-retary-cum-lndustrial Development Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna. Respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavits and reply thereto has been filed by the petitioner.

3. With the consent of the parties the Writ application has been taken up for rearing and final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. The facts are not in controversy. The petitioner-company is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is a private limited company. It was incorporated in the financial year 1999-2000. Its object, inter-alia appears to be of setting up of a food processing unit and it decided to set up a modern rice mill. It is the case of the petitioner that Govt, of India announced a policy to give assistance under various schemes for setting up Food Processing Industries in the Ninth Plan period 1997/2002. Govt. of India made various advertisements pursuant to the said policy promising an outright grant of 25% of the cost of capital equipment and Technical Civil Works worth Rs. 50 lakhs whichever is less as envisaged assistance to proposal for setting up, expansion or modernisation, inter alia, of grain milling units. The objective was to grant financial assistance for setting up such project with latest technology which enhances recovery, improves quality, ensures by-product utilisation and other benefits leading to substantial value addition. In the policy statement it is stated that the grant is not given merely for running conventional units without substantial value addition or innovation. Under the terms and conditions it was provided that the project should be recommended by the State Nodel Agency. In the present case State Nodel Agency for Bihar is the Industrial Development Commissioner, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar. The scheme and the advertisement are annexed as Annexures 1,2 and 3 to the Writ application. It is the further case of the petitioner that being allured by the said assistance policy the petitioner-companydecided to set up a modern rice mill. Having set up the rice mill it obtained permanent registration as a Small Scale Industry from the Govt. of Bihar. It applied for term loan and working capital loan to the State Bank of India, Daudnagar, Aurangabad who appraised the project and ultimately by their letter dated 15,5.2002 (Annexure 7) sanctioned Cash Credit Limit against hypothecation of stock to the extent of Rs. 35.20 lakhs and Medium Term Loan to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs. While appraising the proposal, State Bank of India took into account the total project cost being Rs. 61 lakhs. The petitioner then alleged to have applied on 22.7.2002 to the State Nodel Agency for grant as promised by Union of India. This application is said to have been sent through State Bank of India, Daudnagar Branch (Annexure 8). Under the said application it was clearly stated that the project is under production since May, 2002. State Bank of India, then seems to have forwarded by their letter dated 23.1.2003 the said application to the Industrial Development Commissioner, Govt, of Bihar, the State Nodel Officer under the said policy. State Bank of India by its letter dated 25.2.2003 also appears to have forwarded the application of the petitioner