----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:

(A) Declare that the factors taken into account by the State Level Committee in its proceedings, dated 30.01.2014, communicated by order, dated 20.02.2014, by respondent No.2 for purposes of rejection of the petitioner’s claim are unreasonable, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(B) Declare that the registration obtained by the petitioner company following due process of law shall be sufÏcient for the purposes of grant of transport subsidy under the scheme in question from the period with effect from commencement of commercial production and that no exceptions can be made in this regard. .

(C) Declare that the recommendations/suggPestions of State Level Committee, that the transport subsidy be confined only to 50% of the clinker used for conversion t u o nw a ce rr m an e t n e t d a w n i d th w in ith o th u e t ju r S is ta d t ic e ti o o n f .HH.P. i.s illegal,

(D) Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of the State Level C ommittee meeting held on 30.01.2014 and order datfed 20.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 rejeocting the Central transport subsidy claim of the petitioner company as being unfair, unreasonable, in frustratio n of the object and purposes of the scheme and thtus violative of Article14 of the Constitution. r

(E) Declare that sub paragraphs 14 and 15 of para 6 of the Transpourt Subsidy Scheme, dated 23.07.1971, as amended from time, in so far as conferring unguided discretioon on the respondents in the matter of registration of the eligible industrial units and the pCrocessing of claims by such industrial units, as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(F) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents hto release the amount of subsidy for the first two quarters, namely, April, 2010 to June, 2010 for an gamount of ₹10,10,47,995/- and July, 2010 to September, 2010 for an amount of ₹7,43,82, 663/-H i f in o t r e th re w s i t th @ ; a 1 n 8 d % a l p o e n r g w an it n h u d m u e fr c o o m m p th e e n s d a u ti e o n d a in t e te t r i m ll s t h o e f date of actual payment, which amount has been illegally withheld by the respondents or otherwise for the delayed processing of the claims made by the petitioner.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had also preferred CWP No.1586/2025 seeking directions to the respondent-State to decide representation dated 25.09.2025 as to whether MOU dated 01.03.2008 as part of Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971 or checklist issued by respondent No.3-UOI for scrutinizing the claims under Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971. The wri.t petition was disposed of on 16.10.2025 with direction to State Government to consider and deci.de the representation within four weeks. Pursuant to directions issued, the respondents convened mfeeting of the Committee on 03.02.2026 and 18.02.2026. The Minutes of Meeting of the Committee htave been incorporated at Annexure A-1 wherein follorwing decision was arrived at by the Committee:-

“Decision of Committee:- In view of above mentioned faCcts & after detailed deliberations and discussions on the submissions by the petitioner, as well as from the perusal of ofÏcial record placed before the committee, it was agreed that conditions mentioned in the MoU hdoes not pertain to the subject matter under consideration. It is clear that there is no mention of the gcompany being under the obligation of converting 50%of the total clinker into cement within the State and i hence the MoU itself does not deprive the petitioner H from in any way availing transport subsidy under GoI’s Transport Subsidy Scheme, 1971. Hence, it was decided to direct the Commissioner (Industries) to convened SLC meeting of Transport Subsidy Scheme in the matter under reference an