THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No.1773 of 2008 Date: 03.09.2009 Between: M/s Jyothi Sheel Textiles Company Pvt., Ltd., Rep., by its Director S.K.Kabra … Petitioner And Mr. Sai Prasad, Chief Managing Director, The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, Shingreni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad and 3 others. …Respondnets THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Contempt Case No.1773 of 2008 O R D E R: This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 19.02.2008 in W.P.No.7816 of 2002. The petitioner herein filed the said writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the A.P. TRANSCO and Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, in not extending 25% rebate on power tariff for the initial three years period in terms of G.O.Ms.No.108 Industries and Commerce (IP) Department dated 20.05.1996 as well as Edibility Certificate dated 17.11.2001 given by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 78(a) of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The said writ petition was allowed with all consequential benefits by order dated 19.02.2008. It is alleged in this contempt case that in spite of the order of this Court, the respondents had failed to extend 25% rebate. Though the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 21.09.2008, the respondents did not extend 25% rebate to the petitioner. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the 25% rebate has been sanctioned on 07.03.2009 and the same has also been intimated to the petitioner. It is further stated that the rebate amount would be deducted from the running bills of the petitioner- company and accordingly from the month of March, 2009, they are not collecting the CC charges of the petitioner and the same are being deducted from the 25% rebate amount. The fact that the 25% rebate has been sanctioned on 07.03.2009 is not disputed by the petitioner. However, in its reply affidavit, it is contended that since this Court allowed W.P.No.7816 of 2002 with all consequential benefits, the petitioner, which started its commercial productions with effect from 12.03.2000, is entitled to 25% rebate for a period of three years up to 11.03.2003 as per G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20.05.1996, as a cash refund, together with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the action of the respondents in extending 25% rebate by deducting the same from the running bills of the petitioner-company instead of making a cash refund together with interest, amounts to deliberate violation of the order of this Court and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the contempt of Courts Act. It is to be noticed that while allowing W.P.No.7816 of 2002, this Court had declared that the petitioner is entitled for the rebate as per G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20.05.1996. The operative portion of the order may be extracted hereunder: “After scrutiny of the entire material, I am convinced that the petitioner established new industry in the leased premises of the old industry and as the Industries Department also certified that the petitioner is entitled for the rebate as per G.O.Ms.No.108, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for the rebate as mentioned in the G.O. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.” It is true that the writ petition was allowed with all consequential benefits. However, what are the consequential benefits has not been specified. It is also relevant to note that clause 6.04 of G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20.05.1996 provides that the rebate shall be allowed in the monthly bills of the industries. Having regard to the fact that there is no specific direction by this Court for cash refund to the petitioner, I am unable to hold that the action of the respondents in extending the rebate by way of deduction from the running bills of the petitioner-company amounts to violation of the order of this Court. Hence, this is not a fit case to take cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for the cash refund together with interest as claimed, if so advised. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 03-09-2009 KLP