- (1.) The above writ petition was filed by Jakotia Plastics Private Limited, Unit-II, represented by its Managing Director, Omprakash Jakotia, to issue Writ of Mandamus, or order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not extending 25% rebate in power tariff to the petitioner's unit by the Board, Hyderabad, in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No. 108, dated 20-5-1996, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires of the powers of the Board and consequently direct the respondent to grant relief of 25% rebate in power tariff to the petitioner's unit for the initial three years period i.e., 15-11-1995, on which date the petitioner had gone into regular production as envisaged under the said G.O.
(2.) It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner's company was established as a New Unit under the name and style of 'Jakotia Plastics Private Ltd., Unit-II at Plot No. 43/A, Phase-I, I.D.A., Jeedimetla with the financial assistance from the A.P. State Financial Corporation and it was engaged in manufacture of HDPE/PP Woven sacks. It is further submitted by the petitioner, company has applied for H.T. connection and the same was sanctioned and released on 8-11-1995 vide service Connection No. RRD-679 by the Electricity Board. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District is the competent authority to issue eligibility certificate for claiming rebate in the electricitv charges as per the said G.O. dated 20-5-96. Accordingly, the petitioner Company made an application for issuing eligibility certificate to the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Rangareddy Dist., Balanagar and he issued Eligibility Certificate No. 10595/A2/96, dated 18-10-96 for claiming 25% rebate in power supply (demand and energy charges) for H.T. supply with effect from 15-11-1995 for a period of three years. The petitioner-Company made an application to the Superintending Engineer (Operations), Rangareddy District on 18-10-1996 to permit it to avail 25% rebate on power tariff with effect from 15-11-1995. But when the Superintending Engineer has not extended the benefit of rebate, and informed orally that there are no instructions from the Electricity Board for granting such rebate in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 108, dated 20-5-1996, immediately he made a representation on 20-10-1996 to the Member-Secretary, Electricity Board, enclosing copy of the said G.O., but no rebate as envisaged by the Government in the said G.O. was extended. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 23253/1996 before the Hon'ble High Court which disposed of the same on 19-3-1997 with certain directions and the operative portion of the judgment therein reads as under:- "....Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider that interest of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of rebate as contained in G.O.Ms.No. 108 dated 20-5-1996 to the petitioner, as and when the Board decides to implement the G.O. The petitioner shall not be discriminated and the rebate shall be given to the petitioner if it is decided to extend the said benefit to similarly situated industries." It is further stated by the petitioner that the Board issued Proceedings under BP (OP.Commt) Ms.No. 88, dt. 29-11-1997 in purported exercise of its powers conferred by Sec. 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 extending the relief of 25% rebate to eligible new industries, that the Board in Annexure-II of the said B.P. specifically deleted the units manufacturing the HDPE/ PP/Woven sacks from the list of ineligible industries for grant of rebate earlier included in the ineligible list contained in G.O.Ms.No. 117, dated 17-3-93 and B.P. Ms. 51 dt. 24-5-1993. Therefore, in view of the specific deletion from the list of ineligible industries the petitioner unit which manufactures the items covered under the abovementioned description, is entitled to the rebate of 25% in power tariff. Though the G.O.Ms.No. 108 was issued on 20-5-96, but the power rebate was confined to only those units which went into regular production w.e.f. 1-4-1997 as against the date 15-11-1995 fixed in the said G.O. In clause 2 of the said B.P. it is provided that the units which were declared as ineligible for 25% rebate under B.P.Ms. 51, dated 24-5-1993, but were made eligible by the Government by G.O.Ms.No. 108, dated 20-5-96 for the rebate and which went to production after 15-11-1995 can make a claim for rebate and such claims may be referred to Board for examining the case for consulting with Government. Therefore, the action of the Board in prescribing the date different from one prescribed by the Government for eligibility to get rebate is ex facie illegal and ultra vires the powers of the Board and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file writ petition for redressal of its legitimate grievances.
(3.) It is further submitted that in the face of the judgment of the High Court in W.P.No. 23253/1996, the Board cannot deny the grant of 25% rebate in power tariff to the petitioner-Company and the respondent is not entitled to change the cutoff date for eligibility. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-Company that as per the authoritative pronouncements of the High Court the Government can take policy decisions as to the entitlement of power concession to the industries and issuing the directions, recommending the date of concessions and the date on which the industry has gone into regular production. Therefore, once the State Government has exercised its powers under Section 78-A of the Act in public interest or in the interest of the economy of the State, the Electricity Board is obliged to be guided by such directives; unless such directives are outside the framework of the Act or the Board has raised a dispute under subsec. (2) of Sec. 78-A. Therefore, in view of that, the respondent Board cannot fix a different date from the one which was fixed by the Government in its policy directive for reckoning the eligibility of the industries for the rebate. Therefore, it is contended that fixing the date of entitlement, the Board is seeking to deny the benefit of rebate for those units which went into production between 15-11-1995 and 31-3-1997 and it is against the directives issued by the Government. Therefore, B.P.Ms.No. 88, dated 29-11-1997 to the extent it has altered the cut-off date for eligibility from 15-11-1995 as prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 108, dated 20-5-1996 to 1-4-1997 is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the powers of the Board. That there is no rationale behind the fixation of 1-4-97 as the cut-off date for the eligibility and such a fixation has resulted in discrimination between the units which went into production before 1-4-97 and those went into production after 1-4-97. Therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.;