- (1.) M. C. Agrawal, J. By these two peti tions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who have set industries in the hill regions of the Stale of U. P. , went the U. P. State Electricity Board and the State of U. P. to comply with the directions and assurances given in a Government Order dated 16th January, 1984. By the said letter No. 11340-AC-40/181 the Joint Secretary to the Govern ment of U. P. informed the Director of In dustries, U. P. of the decisions taken by the Government for the development of in dustries in the hill regions. The letter, inter alia, states that in respect of industries in stalled at a height of more than 2000 feet having a contract load up to 250 KVA will allowed fifty per cent development rebate for five years from the date of the grant of the connection and further such industries will be exempted from the minimum char ges for a period of two years. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the Secretary to the U. P. State Electricity Board.
(2.) SINCE both the petitions involve common points for determination, we state the facts and contentions raised in Writ Peti tion No. 3428 of 1990 first. The petitioner's case is that it set up a factory at Tehri Tapoban, Muni Ki Roti in district Garhwal and started manufacturing steel, rounds and plates in August, 1985. An electric connection was granted to the petitioner on its application made in the year 1985. The Government had issued the aforesaid order dated 16th January, 1984, and, therefore, the petitioner claimed that it be allowed fifty per cent development rebate instead of 33. 5% granted by the respondent No. 4 before whom the petitioner even placed a copy of the said Government Order. The Executive En gineer, respondent No. 4, however, refused to grant rebate to the extent of fifty per cent and also the exemption from minimum charges. The petitioner also approached the General Manager, Industries Department, lehri Garhwal, and also sent a notice dated 22nd November, 1986, to the Director of Industries, Kanpur and to the Chairman, U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow, but to no effect. It is alleged that the hill districts of Uttar Pradesh are backward and the said Government Order was issued for promot ing industrial development of the area and that the petitioner set up its industry only on coming to know of the said Government Order. The petitioner had filed a Writ Peti tion No. 2970 of 1987 in this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 18th August, 1987, directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation. A copy of the said order passed by this Court has been reproduced in para 18 of the writ petition which states that if the Govern ment Order is withdrawn, the petitioner will not get the benefit of the same. The Addi tional Director of Industries is alleged to have informed the petitioner by letter dated 17th October, 1987, that the said Govern ment Order dated 16th January, 1984, has not been withdrawn. The respondents did not decide the petitioner's representation and the petitioner again filed a Writ Petition No. 7924 of 1988 which was disposed of on 2nd March, 1989. The Court found that the representation made by the petitioner did not give any details and it, therefore, directed the petitioner to make a fresh rep resentation and directed the respondent No. 3, namely, the Chairman, U. P. State Electricity Board, to decide the same. The petitioner's representation is said to have been rejected by an order, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure "13". The Chairman of the Board took the stand that the letter dated 16th January, 1984, issued by the Government was not a direction to the Board within the meaning of Section 78-A of the Act and that the Board has not given any benefit in ac cordance with the said letter to any con sumer in the hill areas. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the Government letter dated 16th January, 1984, and also to refund the excess charges that the respon dents have already collected from the petitioner in respect of old bills. By an interim order dated 14th February, 1990, this Court made an interim order directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to give rebate to the extent of fifty per cent in the bills which maybe sent tor the electricity consumption by it hereafter. It was clarified that in the event of the failure of the peti tion, the petitioner shall make good the deficiency within the time to be specified by the Court while disposing of the writ peti tion.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed on be half of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, that is, the U. P. State Electricity Board and its Execu tive Engineer himself, it has been state that the power connection was sanctioned to the petitioner vide order dated 19th November, 1984, and the concession was released in 1985, after an agreement dated 27th June, 1985, was duly executed between the parties. It is averred that the Government Order dated 16th January, 1984, is not binding on the Board and the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on its basis. It is alleged that the said letter has been issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Director of INdustries, U. P. while the Board is a body corporate con stituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and is empowered to frame and revise the tariff under Section 5 of the said Act. It has been alleged that accord ing to the prevailing tariff, industries like the petitioner are being allowed develop ment rebate at the rate of 33-1/3% on the amount of the bill as incentive to the new industries for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the supply. It is claimed that the petitioner is entitled to rebate and other reliefs, if any only in ac cordance with the traiff framed by the Board and not in accordance with the said Govern ment Order which is not binding on the Board. It is also alleged that there was no consultation by the department of IN dustries with the Board before issuing the said Government Order dated 16th January, 1984. It is also claimed that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Almost similar are the averments by the parties in Writ Petition No. 6920 of 1990 in which M/s. Sanjay Industries is that petitioner. It has established a factory for manufacturing leaf springs and binding wire at Dhalwala, P. O. Muni Ki Reti, in the dis trict of Tehri Garhwal. It started running its unit on 30th December, 1988, on the grant of 0. 50 H. P. power connection which was, subsequently, enhanced to 100 H. P. It also claimed relief in accordance with the said G. O. dated 16th January, 1984.;