9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion are that the petitioner is a registered company carrying on the business in manufacture of cement at Mathampally Village, Nalgonda District. At the relevant time, B.P.Ms.No.691 dated 10.8.1976 and B.P.Ms.No.152 dated 13.12.1978 were in vogue and according to which the respondent - Board granted rebate of 25% in demand and energy charges for H.T. and L.T. industries for a period of three years from the date of initial production. It is stated that under the above proceedings of the respondent - Board, there is no maximum monetary ceiling limit with regard to grant of 25% rebate on power tariff for the period of three years from the date of regular production. Basing on the above proceedings of the respondent - Board, the petitioner -comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos.691 and 152 were in force, under which no maximum ceiling limited was fixed. It is stated that the petitioner -company made representation to the respondent - Board in this behalf and they were rejected, hence the present writ petition is filed. 5. No counter is filed. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri O. Manohar Reddy submitted that the petitioner -company started production on 24.3.1993 and by that time, the G.O. Ms. No.1 17, dated 17.3.1993 was not adapted by the respondent - Board and hence the ceiling limit fixed in the said G.O. cannot be made applicable to the petitioner -company. He submitted that by the time the petitioner - company started production only the G.O. Ms. No.654, dated 13.7.1976 was in force. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same and issued G.O. Ms. No.654, showing the effective date as 1.1.1976. The above act of the Board in issuing B.P. Ms. No.689, dated 17.9.1975 and seeking the approval of the Government would only indicate that the Board had conceded to the jurisdiction of the Government exercisable under Section 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It further means that the benefit had actually been given effect to, only by the Government and not by the Board. All this is evident from the first paragraph of B.P. Ms. No.51. 9. It is rather intriguing to note that in paragraph No. 3 of the said B.P., the Board while exercising its power conferred under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 formulated certain guidelines. The said gui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther words the benefits as regards the rebate in power tariff, given by the Government through G.O. Ms. No.654, dated 13.7.1976 were restricted or modified partially by the same authority, by issuing G.O. Ms. No. 117. It is not in dispute that both the G.Os. are prospective in nature. But it is to be noted that by the time the petitioner - company started production, the G.O. Ms. No.117 was already issued and was very much in force. 13. To put it slightly in a different way, the benefits extended by G.O. Ms. No.654 were partially modified by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.117 and the same is binding, inasmuch as the petitioner started commercial production on a later date, after issuance of G.O. Ms. No.117. 14. From the above it is cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e concessions nor the date on which the rebate will come into force. In such circumstances, the Board approached the State Government and in turn the State Government took the decision after considering all the aspect and the decision came out in the form of G.O. Ms. No.654, Industries and Commerce, dated 13.7.1976, Allowing or disallowing the benefit of power tariff concessions to any category of industries is evidently a policy matter of highest importance and that is the reason why the Electricity Board did not independently take a decision in that regard and it was left to the Government. 8. ..... It is apparent from the various Government Orders brought to our notice that the Government is extending incentives for the new industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1976, which was extended by G.O. Ms. No.38, dated 20.1.1977. 16. Another Division Bench of this Court in A.P.S.E.B. v. Venus Hotel, Khammam, AIR 1999 AP 333, in similar circumstances while dealing with the effect of implementation of the policy decision of the Government by the Electricity Board, made certain observations at paragraph No.5 of the judgment and the relevant portion is extracted as under: In our considered view the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 30.4.1994 was a policy decision issued by the State Government granting concession. It is the just expectation of the citizen that the policy-decision of the State would be carried out by all its instrumentalities without any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
