1. Heard counsel Shri S. Gadodia appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ajit Kumar, Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State Respondent.

2. The controversy in the instant writ petition is regarding Memo No. 2869 dated 24.12.2010 (Annexure2 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of interest subsidy under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001, has been rejected for the financial years 200607 and 200708, on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Clause 4.3 (Gha) 1 & 2 of the Jharkhand Industrial Incentive Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules').

3. The specific assertion on behalf of the petitioner is that these Rules amount to curtailment of the spirit and essence of the Policy i.e. Jharkhand Industrial Policy 2001, hence, amounts to exercise of excessive power and defies the intent of Industrial Policy 2001 itself. The respondents, by means of the impugned Memo No. 2869 dated 24.12.2010 issued by Respondent No. 3, rejected the claim of the petitioner for the year 200607 to be barred by 1 year 13 days and for the year 200708 by 13 days. The facts of the case are as follows :

The petitioner i