C^ \0^ Siiaigi®s@oe|g BEFORE THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATCS6ARH A~T BILASPUR W.P.(C) No^.^/2011 Petitioner: ..-^ n^> </1 -^^^ ^;.^<fc>- /"'" <'~<yJ-v ^^Y''1' >%•- ^-" Respondents; -f- M/s Sudha Agro Oil <& Chemical IndustriesJ.y.. Through Its Director, E. Rajeev, S/o Shri P. Ramakrishna, Aged about 33 years, R/o B-ll, Sanesh Enciave, Koni, Bitaspur Dist, Ratpur. C& State. Versus l:State of C6, Through Secretary, (Energy), 6ovt of C.6. DKS Bhowan, Raipur Raipur Dist, C6 State. 2. Chief Electrical Inspector, QOVT of C.&., 36/437, Ist Floor, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Raipur Dist (C6) 3. Superintending Engineer, Office of Chief.Electrical Inspector, 36/437,1st Floor, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, Raipur Dist (C6) 4. Dist Collector, Cotlectorate, Bilaspur Dist, (C6). ^ 5. The Tahsildar, Tahsit Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Dist, C6 State. .-0 & -^ WRIT PETCTCON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTtON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APROPRIATE WRIT(S) / OR&ER (S) 1 &TREDCTTON fS), ETC. f ^^^^^^^^^^%^^i^f^;flwi^^^^^^^:? H1GN COURT ORCHHATTiSGARH : BIIJASPUR PETITiONER WRIT PET!TION (Q;NO. 332&OF2011 / M/s. Sudha Agro Oil & Chemical industries Ltd. , Versus State ofChhattisgarh & Others under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia) Singie Beneh : Hon'bieShriSatish'K. Acjnihotri, J. Present:- Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate fbr the petifioneri. ShriV.V.S.Moorthy.Oy.A.G.fortheState. ' : ORDER(ORAL) (Passed o" Shis 27tn day of June,2011) 1. This petition nas been fiied by the petitioner aggrieved by demand ootice issued on 01/07/2010 (Annexure P^1). by which the petitioner has been requlred to pay eiectrieity dyty in respect of eonsumption of electricity. 1 2. Shri Nair, learned counse! forthe petitionersubmitsthatthepetitionerisa thrust industry as laid down in the State Industriai Poiicy, 2004-09 (Annexure-3 under clause 9), and .have established a non-conventionai power generation plant in the year 2006. He further submits that underthe State Industria! Poiicy, in para 3 re!ating to Electricity Duty Exemption, the petitioner is entitied to totai exemption for the period of 15 years from the date of commeneement of commercial Droduction. It is submitted thatthe State haying declared sxemptjon and representation having been made, the petitioner altered his position by acting on the said representation by establishing npn-conventionai power generation plant. 3. Shri Nair. further submits that having deciared such exemption,|;lhe respondent cannot refuse and therefore, the petitioner is entitied to ^exemption from eSectricity duty in respect of the period from August, 2006 to March. 2009. it is further submitted that when demand hotice was issued, the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Eiectricai Inspector pn 15/7/20T0 (Annexure P/8), ciaiming exemption from payment of electncity1 1-°1] 1L T?h ^^^^^.L-^W^^ -A 'affisa ^:!?:ii!^ duty under certificate dated 1 .8.2006, but petitionei^s application i •for exemption from paymentofelectricitYdutyhasnotbeenconsiderednorianY decision has been taken and instead, proceedingsfor recovery has been issued against the petitioner. From the averments made in the petition, it is fQund that the petitioner claimsto have estabiished a non-conventionai energygeneration unitin the year 2006. The Industriai Policy for the year 2004 .to 2009 provides for exemption with regard to payment ofeiectricity ,duty for all the thrust industries as contained jn para 3 thereof. Therefore, the claim Of tl-ie Detit'oner does not appear to be frivolous and requlres consideration. In these circumstances, 1 deern it expealent'to directfthe Chief Eiectrical Inspector-resDondent No.2 to decide Detitioner's claim for exemption from payment of etectricity duty, in respect of the period.fr(|im August, 2006 to March, 2009, in accordance with iaw. The petitioner woulct be at liberty to submit fresh representation aiong with relevant deteils before respondent No.2, within a period of one month from today. On'such representat'KBn, belng made, respondentNo.2 shal! decide petmoner's claim for eiigibility. Unti! the claim of the petitioner for grant 6f exemDtion is decided, no coercive steps sha!! be taken by any of the respondents to recover electricity duty untjer demand notice (Annexure P/1). lnviewofforegoing,thewritpetitionstandsdisposedof. ; Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge j]:. \ ashok