Plain meaning of incentive cut-off dates: pre-implementation steps before the specified date disqualify units from concession benefits.

Industrial units were eligible under the Liberalised State Incentive Scheme, 1989 only if they took the first step for project implementation on or after 3 October 1989. The scheme's cut-off language was applied according to its plain meaning, so steps such as applying for finance, ordering machinery, or starting construction before that date disqualified a unit from the concession. The later Government Order superseded the earlier incentive regime, and no enforceable right survived to claim relief under the superseded scheme once the new order came into force.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether industrial units that had taken steps for project implementation before 3 October 1989 were eligible for benefits under the Liberalised State Incentive Scheme, 1989; (ii) Whether a unit could claim relief under the earlier scheme after the later Government Order had superseded it.

Issue (i): Whether industrial units that had taken steps for project implementation before 3 October 1989 were eligible for benefits under the Liberalised State Incentive Scheme, 1989.

Analysis: Paragraph 10 of the scheme made the incentive package applicable only to new industrial units that had taken steps for the first time on or after 3 October 1989 for project implementation. The expression was read as a whole, and steps such as applying for project finance, placing orders for machinery, and commencement of construction were treated as qualifying steps. The principle of interpretation applied was that clear and unambiguous words must be given their ordinary meaning, and the court declined to dilute the cut-off date by reference to later events or administrative recommendations.

Conclusion: Units which had taken any such step before 3 October 1989 were not eligible for the benefits of the scheme.

Issue (ii): Whether a unit could claim relief under the earlier scheme after the later Government Order had superseded it.

Analysis: The later Government Order had replaced the earlier incentive regime, and no subsisting legal right remained to seek consideration under both schemes once the earlier scheme stood superseded. The claim under the old scheme could not survive after the new order came into force.

Conclusion: No enforceable right survived under the earlier scheme after its supersession.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility conditions of the incentive scheme and could not invoke the superseded earlier scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility under an incentive notification must be determined by the plain and ordinary meaning of its cut-off language, and any pre-cut-off step for project implementation disqualifies the unit from the concession.

---