VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claims to be covered by the Industrial Policy of the year, 1995, Annexure 4, and pursuant thereto, claims exemptions in the bills raised by the respondent and also claims that the AMG charges cannot be raised before the expiry of 12 months from the date of production.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that its unit was sanctioned in January, 2000, but actually it started production in December, 2000. The petitioner claims its coverage under the Industrial Policy aforesaid, specifically the second proviso of Clause ka. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing a letter No. 724 dated 20.7.2001, in course of argument, submitted that this letter has been issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Giridih, wherein it has been mentioned that the production of the aforesaid concern, i.e. M/s. Pradeep Cement Pvt. Ltd., Bhorandia, Giridih, has commenced from 18.1.2001. The petitioner has filed this writ for quashing the bills Annexure 3 and also for a writ of mandamus upon the respondent to give it exemption for the period of five years under Annexure 4.
(3.) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, to the contrary, argued that first of all, the writ of mandamus could lie only when the petitioner has made representation before the concerned authorities and the authorities had failed to exercise their jurisdiction to grant relief. In the instant case, the petitioner did not make any representation before the respondents and therefore, the writ of mandamus, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, does not lie. With regard to issuance of writ certiorari for quashing the bills, it was argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that had the petitioner filed the representation and if the representation could not have been allowed and thereafter the bills would have been issued, then in that circumstances, only the writ of certiorari could be allowed. I agree with the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.;