IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 19575 of 2000(E) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- EDATHALA POLYMERS (P) LTD., NORTH EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MOIDEENKUNJU. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.SANJAI PADIYATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, POWER (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DY. CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KOCHI-16. 4. SPECIAL OFFICER (REVENUE), KSEB, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R.2 TO R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.DEEPA FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.19575/00. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR & CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER OF KSEB. P2. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.25.9.95. P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.1.3.97. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.20.3.97 TO R3. P4A. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.3.97 TO R3. P4B COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.24.9.98 TO R3. C. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.2.7.99 TO R3. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.6.99. P6. COPY OF THE STATEMENT. P7. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.21.8.95. P8. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.10.3.2000. P9. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.31.3.2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.21.5.1990. B. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.21.8.95. C. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.17.9.93. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.19575 of 2000 ================== Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an industrial unit which started commercial production on 2.1.1995. By Ext.R1(a) Government order dated 21.5.1990, the Government declared an exemption from payment of electricity duty for a period of five years from the date of commencement of commercial production to new industrial units. The petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P2 application dated 25.9.1995 seeking benefit of exemption from electricity duty declared as per Ext.R1(a) Government order. In the meanwhile, by Ext.P7 Government order, the Government fixed 30.9.1995 as the cut off date for applying for electricity duty concession sanctioned as per Ext.R1(a) Government order. However, the petitioner's application for concession for electricity duty was rejected by the 2nd respondent, by Ext.P9 order, on the ground that the application of the petitioner was received only on 29.3.1996. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order in this original petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the intention of the o.p.19575/00 2 Government was to give electricity duty concession to new industrial units for a period of five years. He, therefore, submits that the fixation of cut off date itself is arbitrary and unreasonable. His further contention is that since the petitioner submitted application dated 25.9.1995, the cut off date cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. He also disputes the statement in Ext.P9 that the application was received only on 29.3.1996. 3. By a counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the contentions of the petitioner are sought to be controverted. According to the respondents, the benefit being a concession, that can only be in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Government for availing of that concession from time to time. They would submit that since the petitioner has not submitted the application within the time stipulated, he is not entitled to the benefits under Ext.R1(a). They contend that the intention of the Government was not to continue the benefit for all time to come and therefore, the Government was perfectly competent to fix a cut off date for applying for the benefits under the Government order. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. o.p.19575/00 3 5. Although the petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 application was forwarded on 25.9.1995, the petitioner is unable to convince me by any material on record that it had reached the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam, on or before 30.9.1995. He is unable to disprove by any material whatsoever that the contention of the respondents that the application was received only on 29.3.1996 is wrong and therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that he had filed the application before 30.9.1995, ie. the cut off date prescribed for submitting the applications. 6. Regarding the other contentions of the petitioner, I do not find any merit. The intention of the Government was not to continue the concession for all time to come. They decided to restrict the concession to those units who apply up to 30.9.1995. I do not find anything arbitrary or unreasonable in restricting the benefits only up to the cut off date fixed in Ext.P7. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader this is a concession. That has to be as per the conditions prescribed for availing of that concession. By Ext.P7 order dated 21.8.1995, the Government fixed 30.9.1995 as the cut off date for applying for electricity o.p.19575/00 4 duty concession sanctioned as per Ext.R1(a) Government order. That being so, the petitioner would be eligible for such concession only if the petitioner had applied for concession before the cut off date fixed by Ext.P7. When the petitioner is unable to satisfy me that he had applied on or before 30.9.1995, I do not think that I can countenance the contentions of the petitioner. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.19575/00 5 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No.19575 of 2000-E ================ J U D G M E N T 30th October, 2008 o.p.19575/00 6