JUDGMENT :

[Prathiba M. Singh, J.]

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in the present petition has approached the Court challenging the rejection of its application for consideration under the Industrial Development Scheme for Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand, 2017 as notified vide notification bearing F. No. 2(2)/2018-SPS dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (hereinafter ‘the Scheme’). According to the Petitioner, it is engaged in the education sector and has set up a University in Haridwar, Uttrakhand. The Petitioner claims that it fully satisfies the requirements of the said Scheme and is eligible for consideration under the above-mentioned scheme.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that when it filed an application for registration under the said scheme, it received a rejection in the following terms:-

“DOES NOT COVER UNITS WHICH ARE ENGAGED IN EDUCATION SECTOR, SO APPLICATION IS REJECTED.”

4. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner prays that it be considered for receiving incentives, under the Scheme, including Central Capital Investment Incentive for Access to Credit (CCIIAC), to the extent of Rs. 5 crores under the Industrial Development Scheme for Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand, 2017.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon various definitions under the scheme and submits that the Petitioner satisfies the requirements under Clause 5F of the Scheme which merely requires significant capital expenditure and significant employment generation potential. According to the Petitioner, sufficient capital expenditure has been made and more than 135 persons have been given employment by the Petitioner.

6. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents have pointed out firstly that the Petitioner has impleaded the wrong Ministry as the Respondent. It is his submission that the Ministry of Education would be the correct Respondent in this case.

7. On behalf of Respondent No. 3- Directorate of Industries, Dehradun, Uttarakhand is concerned, ld. Counsel for the said Respondent submits that insofar as the negative list of admissible activities are concerned, the Empowered Committee has been given the final discretion.

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsel for the parties. Vide order dated 12th November, 2021, the Court had directed the Petitioner to file certain documents to show how it would be covered by ambit of `industry’. The said order reads as:

“3. The petitioner, which claims to be a University established in the State of Uttarakhand, has approached this Court assailing the decision of the Empowered Committee, chaired by the Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade/respondent no.2, rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 29.09.2021 for the grant of Central Capital Investment Incentive for access to credit under the Industrial Development Scheme for Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, 2017 (IDS). The petitioner’s application has been rejected on the ground that the IDS does not cover establishments which are engaged in the education sector.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for, and is granted, two weeks’ time to file additional documents in support of its plea that the petitioner/university would fall within the ambit of the term ‘industry’, and hence be covered by the IDS.”

9. Thereafter, vide order dated 21st March, 2022, the Court had prima facie expressed doubt on the eligibility of the Petitioner for registration under the Scheme. The said order reads as:

“Prima facie, the Court finds no justification to interfere with the order impugned which holds against the petitioner asserting that an educational institution would not fall within the ambit of the notification of 23 April 2018. As this Court reads the provisions made in the policy, it is manifest that it was restricted in its application to new and existing “industrial units”. Merely because education may have been recognised to be an “industry”