more than one year, notice for cancelling the concession was issued on 13.7.2006, which was contested by the petitioner but vide the impugned order, the benefit was withdrawn on the only ground that the petitioner was not duly registered on the relevant date and was not, thus, “unit in pipeline” as per Rule 28C(o). 4. When the writ petition earlier came up for hearing, the same was allowed vide order dated 27.12.2007, only on the ground that the benefit once having been given, the same could not be withdrawn by reviewing the earlier order. On appeal of the State of Haryana, the said order was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the observation that the question as to which was the registering authority, as contemplated under Rule 28C(o) of the Rules and whether filing of IEM with the SIA amounted to registration, was required to be decided. The petitioner was directed to implead the Union of India as party. Accordingly, Union of India has been impleaded as a party and has filed its reply by way of affidavit of Shri Alok Mukhopadhyay, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, New Delhi dated 10.8.2010, stating that on 4.8.1999, the petitioner was informed that it was entitled for setting up the unit outside the NCT of Delhi. The location as approved earlier vide letter dated 12.2.1998, was deleted. Letter dated 4.8.2000 was only acknowledgment of IEM application form filed by the petitioner on 24.7.2000 on account of change of location.
