- (1.) H. L. Gokhale, C. J. All these writ petitions seek to challenge the notifications dated 18. 6. 1998 and 25. 1. 1999, issued by the Respondent No. 3-U. P. State Electricity Board, which have reduced the rebate on consumption of power for Iron and Steel Industries in Bundelkhand Region of Uttar Pradesh from 50% on consumption to 25% on demand. The petitioners are industrial units situated in Bundelkhand area of Uttar Pradesh, whereas the respondents to the writ petitions are State of Uttar Pradesh and U. P. State Electricity Board and their officers.
(2.) THE short case of the petitioners is that they are small scale industries which have set up Steel and Iron Units in backward region of Bundelkhand in view of the promises contained in the earlier notifications of U. P. State Electricity Board dated 18. 1. 1992, 15. 7. 1994 and particularly 3. 1. 1997, which gave them the rebate of 50% on consumption of power for a period of five years from commencement of supply. THEy set up industrial units on that footing and now by virtue of the notifi cation dated 18. 6. 1998 and 25. 1. 1999, the rebate which was earlier available on consumption at the rate of 50% was sought to be reduced to 25% of the demand of power. THEy contend that this has adversely affected them and many of them have closed down. THEy are submitting that the respondents are estopped from resiling from the concessions, which were granted under the earlier notifications. THEse notifications granting concessions as well as reducing them are for Hilly areas (now in Uttarakhand) and Bundelkhand areas. For Hilly areas the concession was re duced from 33% on consumption to 17% on demand of power. The defence of the respondents has been that the action taken by them is protected under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is submitted that the respondents have suffered losses while making supply to those industrial units almost in the range over Rs. 15 to 20 crores and these losses are attributable to theft of electricity by these units. One who wants to take benefits of a scheme, must not abuse the provisions thereof and the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against public interest. The questions of law in all these petitions are by and large similar, namely, as to whether the petitioners can invoke the principle of prom issory estoppel against the respondents to insist on the rebate for the period for which the benefit was curtailed. There is slight variation of facts from matter to matter. However, since the question of law is identical in all these petitions, they are heard and decided together. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits to the petition and the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit. Further affidavits, charts and orders are also placed on record. Mr. Vishal Dixit, Mr. V. B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. R. Santanam have appeared for the petitioners. Mr. S. M. K. Chaudhary has ap peared for the U. P. Power Corporation Ltd.
(3.) BEFORE we deal with the submission of the learned counsels, it will be desirable to refer to the relevant provisions of the notifications with which we are concerned. The relevant provisions of the notifications are as follows: "the first in point of time is the tariff vide notification dated 18. 1. 1992. Relevant provisions of clauses reads as under: " (4) Rate of Charge (Energy Charges): All KWH consumed in the month 200 paise per KWh (5) Extra Charge or Rebate: (i) In case of supply given at 400 volts, the consumer shall be required to pay an extra charge of 10 per cent on the amount calculated at the rate of charge under item (4 ). (ii) If supply is given at voltage more than 11 KV, rebate mentioned below will be admissible on the amount calculated at the rate of charge under item (4 ). (a) Above 11 KV upto 66 KV 5% (b) Above 66 KV upto 132 KV 7. 5% (c) Above 132 KV 10%. XX XX Xx (8) Concessions: In respect of connections as may be located in any of the eight hill dis tricts in U. P. whose names are given below but excluding those existing at a height of less than610mts (2,000 feet) above M. S. L. in Dehradunand Nainital districts, a development rebate of 331/3% on the amount of the bill as com puted under item 4 and 5 above will be given to new connections for a period of five years from the date of commencement of supply. This rebate will also be admissible for the unexpired period of five years to those existing connec tions which have not completed five years from the date of commencement of supply. This development rebate shall not be admissible to the Departments/corporations/undertakings of State/central Government and Local Bodies. " Name of eight Hill Districts : 1. Almora district 2. Chamoli district 3. Pauri Garhwal district 4. Pithoragarh district 5. Nainital district Tehri Garhwal district;