The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.1505 of 2005 Dated 1st July, 2010 Between: M/s.Ratna Extrusions (P) Ltd., …Petitioner And The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hyderabad and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Ch.Srinivas Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4: AGP for Industries & Commerce Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.S.B.Mohan Rao for Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, SC for AP Transco. The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter, dated 28-10-2004, of respondent No.3 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant 25% rebate on power bills for a period of three years from 18- 08-1999 to the petitioner. I have heard Sri Ch.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.B.Mohan Rao, learned Counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner, which is a registered Company, is involved in manufacture of aluminium containers/bottles, aluminium capacitors cans and aersoel cans. The petitioner has averred that the erstwhile Electricity Board has released power supply to it on 18-08-1999 and that it has gone into regular production with effect from 20-09- 1999. The petitioner was given eligibility certificate by respondent No.1 vide his proceedings No.9683/81/99, dated 09-02-2000, for availing power rebate of 25% for a period of three years subject to a maximum limit of Rs30 lakhs with effect from 18-08-1999. The said certificate is stated to have been communicated by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2. Besides the petitioner submitting representation, dated 22-06-2000, along with the said eligibility certificate, acting on letter, dated 09-03-2004, addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, the latter addressed letter, dated 13-05- 2004, to respondent No.4 to arrange for reimbursement of subsidy amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs for extending 25% power rebate to the petitioner. The Commissioner of Industries also appeared to have addressed letter, dated 22-09- 2004, to the Chairman and Managing Director of the A.P.Transco with a request to allow the power rebate to the petitioner with effect from 18-08-1999. However, by letter, dated 28-10-2004, the Chief General Manager (Commercial) of APCPDCL informed the petitioner that its request for power rebate cannot be considered as the Target 2000 scheme lapsed by 31-03-2003. Assailing this letter, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 wherein all the above-mentioned facts have been admitted. It is inter alia averred therein that in spite of repeated correspondence made by respondent No.2 including the last of his letters, dated 09-03-2004, seeking advise from respondent No.3, power rebate was not allowed to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the petitioner’s representation made for allowing power rebate was well within the prescribed time. It is further averred that in his letter, dated 13-05-2004, respondent No.3 requested respondent No.4 to arrange for subsidy amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs to enable them to allow 25% power rebate to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 also referred to letter, dated 22-09-2004, addressed by the Commissioner of Industries to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of A.P.Transco, wherein he has requested to release 25% power rebate in favour of the petitioner. From the facts narrated above, it is clearly evident that in pursuance of the policy decision of the Government, the petitioner was found eligible for grant of power rebate for a period of three years with effect from 18-08-1999 subject to a maximum limit of Rs.30 lakhs. The above-mentioned correspondence also clearly proves that the petitioner is eligible for such rebate. The only reason indicated in the impugned letter for rejection of the petitioner’s request is that lapse of the Target 2000 Scheme on 31-03-2003. In my opinion, such a reason cannot be sustained in law. As fairly conceded in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the petitioner has applied well within the time and that it is only because of the reasons attributable to the administration that it was not allowed the 25% rebate. In the above-admitted factual matrix of the case, I find no justification whatsoever in respondent Nos.1 to 3 not allowing the power rebate to the petitioner in terms of the eligibility certificate issued by respondent No.1. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to allow the power rebate to the extent of the petitioner’s eligibility as certified by respondent No.1 by adjusting the same from the future consumption charges of the petitioner commencing from the month of August, 2010. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 1st July, 2010 lur