Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.: (Oral) - The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.12.2011 holding that the petitioner (herein respondent) continues to be entitled to the State subsidy of 30% on the capital investment irrespective of the fact that the petitioner is also a beneficiary of incentive awarded by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) to set up cold storage plant.

2. The learned Single Judge while recognizing the principle for grant of subsidy i.e. that there could be no vested right as set out observed that the only situation where such entitlement could arise is where on the pronouncement of a policy of the State, a person has acted on the promise and altered the status and thus has suffered a detriment. The policy in question was notified on 01.06.1996 as amended upto 26.04.2000 as per Annexure P-1. This policy provides for investment incentive @ 30% of the Fixed Capital Investment subject to a maximum of Rs.50 lacs which was to be sanctioned as per the prescribed Rules set out therein. In addition to this policy, another Notification dated 17.06.1998 was issued as a special package of incentive for the units to be set up in and around the rural focal points. The petitioner was paid Rs.13,82,500/- as part of the subsidy amount against the entitlement of Rs.49,48,500/- predicated on an internal departmental circular dated 06.08.1996. While discussing the issue of incentives under the industrial policy of 1996, the following clarification was issued:-

“i) While sanctioning Investment Incentive (Capital Subsidy), the amount of subsidy obtained by the unit under any other scheme of the Government (Except for the cases covered under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna Scheme which provide for additional capital subsidy under the State Incentive Scheme to such unit) shall be deducted/adjusted by the sanctioning authority.”

3. The aforesaid circular was circulated on 06.09.1996 by endorsing copies to all the officers at Head Quarters for information and necessary action. It was re-circulated on 11.12.2002 as is obviously stated in the circular i.e. that a copy is ‘again’ forwarded to all the General Managers, District Industries Centres in the State for information and necessary action.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent has availed of benefit of incentive from NABARD. It is the plea of the appellants that this incentive already availed of from NABARD is liable to be deducted out of the subsidy payable under the 1996 policy in view of the clause extracted above.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent in view of the aforesaid made two-fold submission before us:-

a) Unpublished circular dated 06.08.1996 (Annexure R-1) cannot be relied upon when it did not form a part of the policy of 1996 including its amendment upto 26.4.2000. This is so since the petitioner acted under the policy to set up the unit.

b) Even if the circular dated 06.08.1996 was applicable, it would not make any difference to the case of the respondent for the reason that what is to be deducted was the subsidy obtained by the unit under any other scheme of the ‘Government’.

As to what is meant by the expression ‘Government’ is apparent from definition of clause 2.1 of the policy of 01.06.1996 as amended upto 26.04.2000 as it is set out to mean the Government of Punjab in the Department of Industries & Commerce.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that as to what is meant by the expression ‘Government’ must take its cue from the exclusion clause incorporated in the bracket after the expression used ‘Government’ whereby cases covered under the “Prime Minister Rojgar Yogna Scheme” have been excluded i.e. all other incentives through Government or Government Agencies are to be excluded and NABARD infact is only a government bank and benefits made available by the NABARD must thus be deducted from the subsidy to be made available to the respondent.

7. On considerat