1. The petitioner, is essentially aggrieved by the non-denial of subsidy to it by the respondents, under a scheme which is titled as: “Special Incentive Package Scheme” (in short the Scheme).

1.1 This scheme was notified by respondent no.1, to encourage, investments for setting up semi-conductor fabrication, and other micro and nano technology manufacturing industries, in India.

1.2 Since, the industry is supposedly capital intensive, and is required to frequently adapt to technological changes, the Government of India (GOI) thought it fit to create a conducive manufacturing environment by offering incentive packages, which were comparable, with what other countries had to offer.

1.3 It appears that the purpose was to attract global investments in the manufacturing sector as also to bridge the viability gap created, due to lack of adequate infrastructure and eco-system.

2. Consequently, the aforementioned scheme was framed and notified by respondent no.1 vide a gazette notification dated 21.03.2007 (in short the 2007 notification).

3. The 2007 notification, under clause 2.3, fixed two different thresholds of Net Present Value (in short the NPV) for investments to qualify for subsidy under the scheme. For semi-conductor manufacturing (fabrication units), the threshold NPV of investments, to be achieved, was fixed at Rs. 2500 crores and above.

3.1 In so far as threshold NPV of investments qua the manufacture of other eco-system products was concerned, the same was fixed at Rs. 1000 crores and above. The said clause provided that threshold value would be taken as the NPV of investments made during the first ten (10) years of the project life, and in arriving at the said value, a discount rate of 9% would be adopted.

4. The petitioner, which fell in the category of manufacturers of “other eco-system products”, claims that it had crossed the threshold NPV of investments, pegged at Rs. 1000 crores. It is the petitioner’s claim that it had achieved the threshold NPV by making investments valued at Rs. 1012.87 crores. 4.1 On the other hand, the respondents claim that the petitioner having achieved a threshold NPV of a value of Rs. 923.28 crores, (which is less than the minimum of Rs. 1000 crores fixed under the 2007 notification) – was not entitled to the claimed subsidy of 25%.

5. This, in substance, is the cause for grievance, which has propelled the institution of the present petition.

5.1 Pertinently, the difference in the valuation of the NPV arises on account of one singular aspect, which is, the period over which the investments made by the petitioner are to be discounted.

5.2 The petitioner has discounted the investments made over the period spanning 2009-2010 to 31.12.2012.

5.3 The respondents, on the other hand, have discounted the investments spanned over 2008-2009 to 2012-2013.

6. As would be evident from the above, the respondents have included the investments made in the year 2008-2009. The petitioner, on the other hand, while discounting, has excluded the investments made in the year 2008-2009. Both are agreed though, that 2008-2009 is the base year. The petitioner has taken the stand that in calculating the NPV of the investments made, the base year is to be excluded, while the respondents argue to the contrary. This, in nutshell, is the core controversy arising between the parties.

7. The background in which the aforementioned controversy has arisen, is briefly as follows: Post, the issuance of the 2007 notification, respondent no.1 formulated guidelines for operation of the scheme, by the Appraisal Committee (in short the Committee), constituted in terms of clause 7.1 of the aforementioned notification.

7.1 These guidelines were formulated on 14.09.2007. It appears that the petitioner, which had set up a unit for manufacture and sale of solar cells and modules, filed an application for grant of capital subsidy, amounting to Rs. 300 crores (which was, according to it, equivalent to 25% of the project cost of Rs. 1200 crores