An applicant who has filed an application for subsidy under a scheme during the tenure of the scheme is entitled to the benefits under the said scheme, and any action by the authorities to deny the applicant the benefits on arbitrary or discriminatory grounds is illegal and void.

( 1 ) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents challenging their decision of non-granting of subsidy, as claimed by the petitioner under the State Scheme of Incentives for Cottage and Small Scale Industries, 1989. The case of the petitioner is that it is a registered private limited company. The State Government introduced a scheme for giving financial assistance by way of subsidy viz. State Scheme of Incentives for Cottage and Small Scale industries, 1989. Said scheme was implemented by Notification dated 03. 08. 1989. It was introduced for promoting growth and development of industries, as specified under the said scheme in the backward areas of West bengal. It was formulated in order to extend fiscal incentives to encourage entrepreneurs to set up or expand Cottage and Small Scale Industries with a view to generate new employment. The petitioner-company, being a shall scale industrial unit, was registered under the Directorate of Cottage and Small Scale industries, Government of West Bengal. The petitioner submitted a scheme for setting up a Re-rolling Mill in the District Malda in order to avail of the benefits, as proposed by the State Government in the said 1989 scheme. Production of the said industry was started on and from 21st February, 1990. Application, accompanied by all the relevant papers, for grant of subsidy under the 1989 scheme, was also submitted with the respondent No. 4. After verification of the original documents, the respondent No. 4 sanctioned a subsidy under the Central investment Scheme amounting to Rs. 1,34,504/- and the said amount was disbursed in favour of the petitioner by an Account Payee Cheque. As per provisions of the 1989 scheme, the application is to be placed before the committee for consideration within a period of two months from the date of receipt by the respondent No. 4. But as the said mandatory provision was not followed by the respondent No. 4, so the petitioner submitted two successive representations praying for making necessary arrangement for early disposal of the matter so that the petitioner can get the subsidy at the earliest. In spite of that, the respondent No. 4 failed to process and finalise the application, filed by the petitioner for getting the subsidy as per provisions of 1989 scheme. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted revised annexure before the respondent no. 4 on 07. 01. 1993. All on a sudden on 23. 09. 1993 the respondent No. 4 issued a letter in favour of the petitioner informing the petitioner that the petitioner's claim for subsidy has been approved and the petitioner was offered to opt for the balance portion of the State subsidy under the new State Scheme of incentives introduced in the year 1993. The respondent No. 4 further sent a prescribed form to the petitioner to opt for the said new scheme. As such, the petitioner was under the impression that he will get the subsidy under the 1989 scheme within a very short period. But, suddenly on 06. 10. 1993 the respondent no. 4 issued another letter in the name of the petitioner informing that the petitioner's application for subsidy is under consideration and it has neither been approved nor sanctioned. Said letter dated 06. 10. 1993, according to the petitioner, was issued motivatedly in order to deprive the petitioner from his legitimate rights. After receiving the said letter, the petitioner raised objection and requested the respondent No. 4 to review the case and allow the subsidy in favour of the petitioner as per State Incentives Scheme, 1989. It was clearly mentioned therein that the petitioner already got subsidy under the Central investment Scheme and submitted the subsidy proposal under the State incentives Scheme, 1989 on 25. 02. 1992 and the petitioner having filed such application for subsidy within the tenure of the said scheme, is eligible and entitled to have such benefit under the said scheme of 1989. In spite of that the representations