THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.26494 and 27106 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are Food Processing Industries, established in the Adilabad District. The Government of India and the State of Andhra Pradesh, provided for various incentives to encourage the Food Processing Industries. On its part, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.333, Industries and Commerce (C&EP) Department, dated 14-11- 2003, providing various incentives for the Industries or Units, in the ﬁeld of Horticulture, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries, Agro-Food Processing Industries, etc. The incentives included the extension of Industrial Infrastructure Development Fund, backward linkages, fright subsidy, interest subsidy etc. The detailed mechanism of the scheme under this G.O. was prescribed through separate orders, in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 05-03-2004. After lapse of about one-and-half years, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005, re-framing the subsidies in the place of those, mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003. The petitioners ﬁled its applications before the concerned authorities, with a prayer to extend the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.333. When no action has been taken thereon, they approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.21292 of 2005 and batch. The plea of the petitioners was opposed by the respondents, on the ground that once G.O.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005, with a deﬁnite scheme, was issued, the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.333 are no longer available. Through a common judgment dated 10-08-2006, this Court repelled the contention of the respondents, allowed the writ petitions, and directed them to extend the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.333. The respondents preferred writ appeals being W.A.Nos.1246 and 1300 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ appeals, through judgment dated 26-03-2007. However, the order passed in the writ petitions was slightly modiﬁed. While in the writ petitions, a direction was issued to the respondents, to straightaway extend the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.333, the Division Bench modiﬁed it, and the respondents were directed to consider the applications of the petitioners, in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.333. The Commissioner of Industries, the 2nd respondent, addressed letter dated 19-07-2007 to the petitioners, stating to be in compliance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1246 and 1300 of 2006. The applications of the petitioners were rejected on several grounds. It was mentioned that the petitioners have commenced its production, much before the date of G.O.Ms.No.333, and as such, they are not entitled for the beneﬁts thereunder. It was also pointed out that, by the time the matter fell for consideration, different set of norms under G.O.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005, were in force. The petitioners contend that the action of the respondents in rejecting the applications is not only contrary to G.O.Ms.No.333, but also, the judgment rendered by this Court, in Writ Appeal Nos.1246 and 1300 of 2006. The respondents ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit, reiterating their stand taken in the impugned order. It is stated that a combined reading of G.O.Ms.No.333 and G.O.Ms.No.55 would disclose that the beneﬁt of incentives is available only to new units, but not to those, which were already in existence. Certain other contentions are also advanced. Heard Sri T.Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Industries. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioners, in the context of availing the incentives, provided in favour of Food Processing Industries. Complaining that its applications, for availing the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.333, are not being considered, the petitioners ﬁled W.P.No.21292 of 2005 and batch. The plea of the respondents, that G.O.Ms.No.333 ceased to be in force, with the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06- 2005, was not accepted. The same view was upheld by a Division Bench. The 2nd respondent was directed to consider the applications of the petitioners with reference to the G.O.Ms.No.333. Through the impugned letter, the 2nd respondent took the view, that the petitioners are not entitled for the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.333, on the ground that they commenced commercial production, much before the date of the said G.O. If the G.O.Ms.No.333 concerned only those units, which have commenced their commercial production after the date of its issue, viz., 14-11-2003, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent deserves to be accepted. However, a perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.333, and in particular, clause 8 thereof, discloses that the view expressed by the 2nd respondent is untenable. The clause reads as under: Clause 8: “All the concessions (except Capital Subsidy) provided under the State Policy on Food Processing Industries, shall be extended to the existing units treating them as new units”. It is very clear in its purport. Not only the new units, but also those, which are already in existence, are entitled for the beneﬁts. The only diﬀerence is, that existing units are not eligible for capital subsidy. An attempt is made to explain Clause 8, by making reference to G.O.Ms.No.55. Firstly, G.O.Ms.No.55, by itself, does not formulate any policy, and it only supplements the one, under G.O.Ms.No.333. At any rate, there is nothing in G.O.Ms.No.55, which takes away the existing units, from the purview of G.O.Ms.No.333. The impugned letter also makes a reference of G.O.Ms.No.179. In clear and unambiguous terms, this Court held in the earlier round of litigation, that G.O.Ms.No.179, does not have the eﬀect of taking away the rights of the petitioners, to avail the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003. Hence, the respondents cannot fall back upon G.O.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, and the impugned letters, dated 19-07-2007, issued by the 2nd respondent, are set aside. It is directed that the applications of the petitioners shall be processed once again, strictly in terms of clause 8 of G.O.Ms.No.333, dated 14-11-2003, without making any reference to G.O.Ms.No.179, dated 22-06-2005. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-09-2008. KO