Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—Though the present writ petition has been filed at the behest of the Bihar Industries Association, for issuance of various directions upon the Industry Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, pertaining to grant of the benefits of capital subsidy and various other incentives under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011 and the Food Processing Policy, 2008, notified by the Government of Bihar, however, realizing the fact that individual cases of individual industries are to be dealt with individually and no order can be passed in rem, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, though seeks not to press the present writ petition but seeks a direction upon the Industries Department as also upon the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB) and the Project Approval and Managing Committee (PAMC) to comply with the directions issued by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.07.2019, passed in the case of

M/s Sunny Stars Hotel Pvt. Ltd. vs. the State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 12104 of 2018)* and other analogous cases, as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 17.01.2020 passed in SLP (C) Diary No. 43744/2019 (converted into SLP (C) No. 1878 of 2020).

2. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that since the judgment, passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sunny Stars Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (supra), has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is imperative for the Respondent-State of Bihar to follow the same and the Respondent authorities would not shirk from complying with the directions issued and the law laid down therein.

3. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it fit and proper to dispose off the present writ petition with an observation that it would be incumbent upon the Respondents to adhere to the directions, issued by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sunny Stars Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (supra), especially the conclusions recorded therein, which are reproduced herein below:—

“The exhaustive discussions that I have made above would lead to the following irresistible conclusions:

(a) The rejection of the case of the petitioners vide letter dated 13.10.2017 impugned at Annexure 19 to CWJC No.12104 of 2018, the order dated 26.06.2018/31.10.2017 impugned at Annexure 15 series to CWJC No.15496 of 2018 and 13.10.2017 impugned at Annexure R/1A to the counter affidavit in CWJC No.2981 of 2019 of the Director, Industries simply because the proposal does not have the approval of the Competent Authority in terms of the resolution dated 16.01.2006, is a whimsical decision, lacking application of mind and bereft of reasons.

(b) In absence of the term ‘Competent Authority’ defined under the ‘Industrial Policy, 2011’, the approval granted by the State Investment Promotion Board, accepted by the concerned/ department in terms of Clause 14 of the ‘Industrial Policy, 2011’ and acted thereupon, there is no requirement of further approval by any other authority.

(c) In absence of any provision present in the ‘Industrial Policy, 2011’, to require the eligibility proposal of any unit to be placed before the Chief Minister or the Cabinet, the explanation given by the Industries department at paragraphs 10 to 13 of the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.12104 of 2018, to justify his illegal act, is de-hors the ‘Industrial Policy, 2011’.

(d) In view of the definition of ‘Competent Authority’ present in the ‘Act of 2006 at Annexure P/3 to CWJC No.2981 of 2019 the approval granted by the State Investment Board and acted upon by the concerned department in terms of Clause 14 for extending incentives to 2 of the 3 petitioners under the ‘Industrial Policy, 2011’, is a valid approval, not open to interference by any other authority on any ground, except eligibility and which is not an issue for the denial of the benefits.

(e) In absence of doubts raised against the petitioners on their eligibility