Applications for subsidy under the Central Investment Scheme must be considered if submitted before the cut-off date and compliant with requirements.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. There are three orders passed by this Court: in Union of India v. Aarbee Pipe & Profiles, SLP (C) No. of 1996 CC 293, decided on February 1, 1996 dated 1-2-1996 by a Bench of three Judges; Umasha Textile v. Union of India , Civil Appeals Nos. 6240-82 of 1994, 7602 of 1994, SLP (C) No.... (CC No. 28211), SLPs (C) Nos. 331, 12605 of 1995, C.As. Nos. 7346-48 of 1995, SLP(C) No. 9400 of 1995, decided on December 5, 1995 [printed at p. 765] dated 5-12-1995 by a Bench of two Judges and State of M.P. v. Agro Engineering (MP) (P) Ltd, Civil Appeal No.... of 1995, decided on November 1, 1995 [printed at p. 763] dated 1-11-1995 by a Bench of two Judges. The substratum of the directions in all those cases is that if the applications are made on or before 30-9-1988 substantially complying with the requirements enumerated in the guidelines issued by the Government of India, they would be considered and disposed of for granting subsidy as per the scheme. The same should be the order in this case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The matter is remitted to the Government and the Committee constituted in that behalf would examine the case and dispose of it in the light of the law laid down by this Court. No costs.

4. (B. P. Jeevan Reddy and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No.... of 1995, decided on November 1, 1995
Leave granted.

5. This batch of appeals arises from the judgment and orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court has disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions following an earlier judgment of the High Court in Shri Bajrang Extraction (P) Ltd. v. Secy., Govt, of M.P, AIR 1993 MP 202 In short, the dispute is this: A scheme called "Central Investment Subsidy Scheme" was evolved by the Central Government with a view to encourage industrialisation of backward and other areas in the country. Under this scheme, the newly - established industries, including those which expanded their capacity, were entitled to certain financial assistance as provided in the scheme. The scheme came to an end on and with effect from 30-9-1988. Several industries had applied for the said financial assistance under the said scheme before the said date, but those applications were not disposed of for one reason or the other. While the writ petitioners - respondents say that the said applications could not be disposed of on account of delays and default on the part of the authorities of the Madhya Pradesh State, the appellant - State says that the said applications were not processed or disposed of because they were defective or because they had not complied with the prescribed conditions. It is really not necessary for us to go into this dispute, inasmuch as the only direction that the High Court has made is in terms of the direction made in the said Bajrang Extraction, which reads to the following effect:
"(a) The State of M.P. shall renominate or revivify (revive) the State Level Committee or constitute any other authority to decide the applications of the petitioners on merits on the basis of acquisition of eligibility qualifications before the expiry date of the scheme, i.e., 30-9-1988 within a period of four months from today"
It was also directed, vide clause (d), that "the Union of India shall reimburse the equivalent amount without unnecessary delay to State of M.P. once the subsidy is disbursed by it to the eligible petitioners". (The Government of India was also a party to the said writ petitions.) We do not thin