### Benefits under Industrial Development Scheme 2017 cannot be denied solely for lack of prior registration.

The petitioner, a solar power company in District Pauri Garhwal, sought benefits under the "Industrial Development Scheme, 2017".

Relying on the scheme, the petitioner invested significant capital and initiated correspondence for registration.

However, the Union of India issued communications dated 30.07.2024 and 09.11.2023, stipulating that scheme benefits would be restricted exclusively to registered units, thereby excluding the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged these communications, asserting that the issue was already adjudicated by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in favor of industrial units.

Whether the restrictive communications dated 30.07.2024 and 09.11.2023, denying benefits to unregistered units under the Industrial Development Scheme, 2017, are legally sustainable.

Whether the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the precedent set by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding the registration of units under the said scheme.

The court applied Clause 6.1 of the policy formulated by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (D.I.P.P.), which mandates that matters regarding the registration of units be considered by an "Empowered Committee" chaired by the Secretary of the D.I.P.P.

The court further relied on the judicial precedent established in Union of India and another v. Atul Sharma and others (LPA No. 169 of 2025) by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which attained finality before the Supreme Court of India, establishing that each case for registration must be examined individually by the Empowered Committee regardless of prior restrictive communications.

The court noted that the impugned communications (dated 30.07.2024 and 09.11.2023) were the exact subject matter already struck down or modified by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Upon seeking instructions, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel (C.G.S.C.) conceded that the current batch of petitions was squarely covered by the Himachal Pradesh precedent.

The court reasoned that since the legal and factual matrix—revolving around the eligibility of units for incentives under the 2017 Scheme—was identical to the settled precedent, the petitioners were entitled to a similar individual review by the Empowered Committee as per the D.I.P.P. guidelines.

The court directed the Empowered Committee, chaired by the Secretary of D.I.P.P., to separately consider each petitioner's case for the grant of incentives under the Industrial Development Scheme, 2017, within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified order.