D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the original respondents in three different writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 1114 of 2004 which was heard with W.P. (C) No. 3839 of 2003 with W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003. These writ petitions were preferred by respondent No. 1 of each of the Letters Patent Appeals and their writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010, whereby, payment of Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges which are exempted under Clause 15-2-2011 of the Industrial Policy, 2001, by which, the original petitioners-industries were permitted to be exempted. Attempt of these appellants, to charge and to levy, Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges, in pursuance of Clause No. 15.2.11 of Industrial Policy, 2001, was not permitted by the learned single Judge and the amount towards Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges, if recovered, has also been ordered to be refunded. Thus, the main dispute involved in these three Letters Patent Appeals revolves around implementation of Clause 15-2-11 of Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, floated by the State of Jharkhand.
(2.) It further appears in the facts of the present case that the State of Jharkhand has floated a Policy to bring the industrial units within the territory of newly born State, whereas, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as "JSEB") is creating resistance or hindrance. The pitch and tone of the argument of the JSEB is against the effective implementation of Jharkhand State Industrial Policy. Even the affidavit of the State Government is running against the affidavit filed by the JSEB. Internal dispute between the JSEB and the State Government is manifestly reflected in the order passed by the learned single Judge.
(3.) Factual MATRIX : * Jharkhand State is a newly born State with effect from 15th November, 2000 and is carved out from the erstwhile State of Bihar. For the optimum utilization of available resources and to accelerate the industrial development and growth within the State of Jharkhand, an Industrial Policy was formulated to achieve the expected industrial growth and, to capitalise the industrial potential, throughout the State of Jharkhand, the Industrial Policy floated by the State of Jharkhand was having few exemption clauses. Such type of Industrial Policy is not so unknown in this country. Newly established industries ought to be supported and such type of support is being given, by keeping away the burden of taxes. * Under Clause 15-2-11 of the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001, exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charge was granted for few industrial units having connected load up to 500 KVA or equivalent H.P., as per billing norms. * Similarly, there is Clause 22.0 meant for units undertaking for expansion/diversification/modernisation. Such units will also get the benefit of exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charge. * Respondent No. 1 in all the Letters Patent Appeals, who are original petitioners, are industrial units established in the State of Jharkhand. M/s. Hi-Tech Glass Industries, Ranchi (petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 1114 of 2004) is having a contract demand of 100 KVA of electricity. M/s. Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Private Limited (petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 3839 of 2003) is a medium scale industrial unit having initialy the contract demand of 75 H.P. of electricity which was later on enhanced up to 200 KVA. M/s Maithan Coal Company Private Limited, Dhanbad (petitioner of W.P. (C) No. 4025 of 2003 is a small scale industrial unit having contract demand of 100 KVA of electricity which was enhanced up to 120 KVA of electricity. * Thus, it appears that all the three original petitioners are having connected load up to less than 500 KVA and, hence, they are claining exemptions from payment of Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges under Clause 15-2-11 of the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001. For the ready reference, Clause 15-2-11 of the Industrial Policy, 2001 reads as under : "15.2.11 Exemption from payment of Minimum Guarantee Charge for new Industrial Units having connected load upto 500 KVA or equivalent H.P. as per billing norms." *For the ready reference, Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy, 2001 reads as under : "22.0 UNITS UNTERTAKING EXPANSION/DIVERSIFICATION/MODERNISATION 22.1 Such units would be given identical treatment as new units only in respect of their incremental production due to their expansion/diversification/modernisation. All such incentives admissible to such units which are covered by the definition of expansion/diversification/modernisation as given in the Annexure, shall be provided." * The aforesaid Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 was to remain in force from 15th November, 2000 to 31st March, 2005, as per Clause-1 of the definitions contained in Annexure-I to the Industrial Policy. * The aforesaid Industrial Policy was approved by the Council of Ministers of the State of Jharkhand by resolution dated 25th August, 2001 which was also subsequently published in the official gazette, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. * Thereafter, the Department of Energy has also passed a resolution dated 13th August, 2002 accepting the policy decision of the State and has also written a letter to the appellants for implementation of the incentive clauses of the Industrial Policy so far as it relates to power. * It appears that this appellants-JSEB has given another date of implementing the Industrial Policy i.e. 1st September, 2002 instead of 15th November, 2000. This is a bone of contention in all the writ petitions and the Letters Patent Appeals. * Later on, wisdom prevailed upon this appeal and one more direction was issued by the JSEB that the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 was to be applicable from 15th November, 2000 will 31st December, 2003 provided the State Government reimburse the losses caused to the JSEB. * JSEB-appellants issued the electricity bills to respondent No. 1 in all the Letters Patent Appeals (original petitioners) along with the Minimum Guarantee Charges, denying the benefits of Clause 15-2-11 of the Industrial Policy, 2001. * Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by this action of the appellants, respondent No. 1 of these Letters Patent Appeals had preferred separate writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004, W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003, which were allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 11th February, 2010. * Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order delivered by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid three writ petitions, present Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by original respondents of the writ petitions.;