IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1217 OF 2000 BETWEEN: The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary and another …. Appellants AND M/s. Pankaj Polymers Ltd., IDA Jeedimetla, R.R. Dist., and Others …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1217 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 23-08-2000 in W.P. No.22818 of 1998. 2. The appellants herein are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition. 3. The Writ Petition was filed by M/s. Pankaj Polymers Limited, respondent No.1 herein, to declare the Memo in Lr.No.SE/OC/RRD and SAO/H.T./III/D.No.200 dated 08-07-1998 issued by appellant No.2, (respondent No.2 in writ petition), denying extension of the benefit of 25% rebate in the power consumption charges. 4. The case of respondent No.1 before the learned single Judge is that it is engaged in manufacture of HDPE/PP Woven Sacks on circular looms. After obtaining a letter of intent from the Government of India with an intention to start an industry in Andhra Pradesh, respondent No.1 has negotiated with the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short ‘APIIDC’) and purchased Plot Nos.46 and 47 for Rs.2,11,153-60 paise and for Rs.1,95,060-60 paise respectively. There were two sheds in the said plots, which were constructed by the owners of the previous industry, M/s. Raja Plastic Industries, and the said industry was engaged in manufacture of PVC Pipes. After completion of necessary formalities, respondent No.1 approached the appellants for transfer of the HP power connection, which was in the name of the previous industry into its name and also made an application for additional power supply and the same was sanctioned by the appellants and both have entered into HT agreement by cancelling the old agreement, which was in the name of previous industry. Further, it is the case of respondent No.1 that it is entitled to 25% rebate in power consumption bills, (both demand and energy for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production), as per G.O.Ms.No.108 Industries & Commerce (I.P.) Department dated 20-05-1996. Respondent No.1 received power consumption bills for two months and paid them accordingly. After noticing that the appellants have collected power consumption charges without extending the benefit of 25% rebate, respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 26-6-1998 to the appellants requesting for the rebate of 25% as per G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20-05-1996. However, respondent No.2 sent a memo in Lr.No.SE/OC/RRD and SAO/HT-III/D.No.200 dated 08-07-1998 informing respondent No.1 that the industrial units, which were purchased from its previous owners, are not eligible to 25% rebate, even though the line of production is different, and the same was challenged in the writ petition. 5. A counter has been filed by the appellants in the writ petition contending that respondent No.1 is bound by the terms and conditions of the electricity supply and the appellants’ Board is entitled to vary the terms and conditions as per Sections 49 and 59 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Further, as per the proceedings of the appellants’ Board in BP (Opn-Comml) Ms.No.1 dated 03-04-1997, respondent No.1 is not entitled to the benefit of rebate as the owners of previous industry i.e. M/s. Raja Plastics industry have already availed it, even though the manufacturing product is different. 6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 before the learned single Judge that only the sheds were purchased by respondent No.1 from the owners of the previous industry but not the industrial unit and that its line of activity is different from the previous industry and that a certificate was also issued by the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District to the effect that respondent No.1 is a new industry and it is entitled to the benefit of 25% rebate in the power consumption in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.108 dated 02-05-1996. 7. The learned single Judge having heard both sides and also having gone through the material on record, allowed the writ petition observing that the conditions laid under B.P. Ms.No.1 dated 03-04-1997 would not apply to respondent No.1 and that it is entitled to claim 25% rebate in the power consumption charges as per G.O.Ms. No.108 dated 20-05-1998, as it is a new unit. Aggrieved of the same, this appeal is filed. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that as per the proceedings of the appellants’ Board under B.P.Ms.No.1 dated 03-04-1997, respondent No.1 is not entitled to 25% rebate on power consumption charges and that the change of productivity and starting a new industry do not mean that it can claim 25% rebate on power consumption charges. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned order. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that the industrial unit of respondent No.1 will not fall under the guidelines issued by the appellants’ Board in its proceedings in B.P.Ms.No.1 dated 03-04-1997 for the reason that it has not purchased the same in the auction conducted by the APIIDC and there were no arrears of power consumption charges by the owners of the previous unit and that the product of respondent No.1 is HDPE/PP Woven sacks on circular looms, whereas the product of the previous unit was PVC Pipes and that the management is also changed. 10. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material placed before us. 11. Clause - 6.04 of G.O.Ms. No.108 dated 20-05-1996 deals with rebate in Electricity charges, which is as under: “6.04) Rebate in Electricity Charges: All new industries, other than those listed in the Annexure and other than those set up in the Municipal Corporation areas of Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam, will be eligible for 25% rebate in power bills (both demand and energy) for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The rebate shall be allowed by the A.P. State Electricity Board in their monthly bills. The maximum total admissible rebate for 3 years will be Rs.50,00 lakhs in respect of Large and Medium Industries and Rs.30.00 lakhs in respect of Small Scale Industries.” 12. Whereas, the proceedings of the Electricity Board in B.P.Ms.No.1 dated 03-04-1997 reads that the new owners of a unit purchased through auction by APSFC or APIIDC in a premises in which there are arrears of c.c. charges or other charges due from the previous owners, are not entitled to 25% rebate on power charges. 13. This is a case where respondent No.1 has purchased Plot Nos. D-46 and 47 and started its industrial unit for manufacturing HDFC/PP Woven sacks on circular looms. Whereas the previous industry was the manufacturer of PVC Pipes. Admittedly, it is clear that the productivity of the previous unit and respondent No.1 is different in nature. No material is placed before us by the appellants to show that respondent No.1 has purchased the unit in an auction conducted by APIIDC and it has been manufacturing the same product as produced by the owners of the previous industry. 14. In the absence of such material and also taking into consideration the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel, we have no hesitation to hold that respondent No.1 will not fall under the guidelines issued by the appellants’ Board in its proceedings in B.P. Ms.No.1 dated 03-04-1997 for the reason that it has not purchased the unit from the owners of the previous industry and not even in the auction conducted by APIIDC and that there are no arrears of c.c. charges from the owners of the previous industry and the line of production of respondent No.1 is also different from that of the previous industry. 15. Therefore, we hold that respondent No.1 is entitled to 25% rebate on power consumption charges. 16. In the above circumstances, we see no illegality in the order of the learned single Judge as such the same need not be interfered with. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ___________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J October 06, 2009. KTL