IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO.291 OF 2002 TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District and 2 others .... Appellants And: M/s. Fletcher Pioneer (India) Private Limited and another ....Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO.291 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. V. Seethapathy) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2001 in W.P.No.13680 of 2001. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking a direction to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled for the incentives provided in G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20.5.1996 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and for a direction to the 2nd respondent herein to receive the 1st respondent’s application, process and grant the incentives as per the G.O.Ms. No.108. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that they are running a ready mix concrete plants having two plants at Bangalore and one in Hyderabad. It has been running a plant at Nacharam which is permanently located and therefore, they are entitled for incentives offered by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.108 Industries & Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20.5.1996. The writ petitioner applied on 5.10.1999 to the 2nd respondent for incentives under G.O.Ms.No.108, but the application of the writ petitioner seeking incentives, was refused. The contention of the appellant herein is that the writ petitioner is running a unit for concrete mixing which specifically falls within Entry 53 and is ineligible for the incentives and therefore, they are not entitled for grant of the incentives offered under the said G.O. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner has been running a plant at Nacharam to get concrete mixing. The specific averment made by the writ petitioner in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of this petition to show that it has a permanent plant at Nacharam reads as follows: “2. we also submit that our Ready Mix Concrete plant is permanent and stationary and is not mobile in nature. The following factors clearly establish that our Ready Mix Concrete Plant is of permanent in nature. i. We have Plant & Machinery and other accessories fixed to the ground at 4 A unit Nacharam Industrial Area, Hyderabad. ii. We have been Factory Licence dated 5.3.1999 under the Factories Act, 1948 to run the factory on a fixed and permanent basis. iii. We have been granted Electricity for a CMD of 180 KVA to run the factory. iv. We have also obtained consent (CFE) from A.P. Pollution Control Board as a non-pollutant plant. v. We have also obtained permanent water connection from HMWS7SB to run the factory. vi. We are a member of Nacharam Industries Association since April, 1999. vii. We have also obtained IEM dated 25.2.1999 from Government of India-Ministry of Industry – Secretariat for Industrial Assistance to manufacture Ready Mixed Concrete on a proposed capacity of 150000 Cubic meters. viii. We are also covered under the Provident Funds, ESI, Profession Tax, Sale Tax etc.” The contention of the appellant-State has been that the matter was placed before the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB), chaired by the Chief Minister of the State, which is the highest policy making body regarding the industrial development in the State and the representation of the writ petitioner has been rejected on 8.1.2000 on the ground that Ready Mix Concrete Units are not eligible for incentives. The petitioner industry falls within the enumerated industries in Entry 53 of the ineligible industries set out in annexure to G.O.Ms.No.108 and hence the petitioner is ineligible for the incentives. Since the application of the writ petitioner was rejected on the interpretation of the Entry 53 of the of the Annexure appended to G.O.Ms.108, the petitioner is not entitled to approach this Court and seek redressal of the grievance. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge the petitioner’s eligibility or otherwise requires to be considered on this interpretation of Entry 53 of the annexure appended to G.O.Ms.No.108 and a mere opinion by the SIPB as to the interpretation of Entry 53 cannot be conclusive. A plain reading of the language employed in Entry 53 of the list would show that all industries of mobile nature are ineligible for grant of the incentives. However, the said Entry names certain Industries of mobile nature like rigs, concrete mixing plants, road metal mixing etc., including site oriented industries. The mere mention of names of those industries by way of example does not disentitle the writ petitioner from claiming the incentives once it is found that the industry run by the petitioner is not mobile in nature. It is only such of those industries which are mobile in nature are exempted from the operation of the G.O.Ms.No.108. If the concrete mixing plants are found to be a mobile industry in nature, it may fall within the ambit of the Entry 53, but if it is shown that the concrete mixing plant run by the writ petitioner is not mobile in nature, the question of excluding the said industry from the operation of G.O.Ms.No.108 does not simply arise. The averments made in para No.7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition show that the industry run by the writ petitioner is not mobile in nature and, on the other hand, it is a permanent industry at a fixed location at Nacharam which averments are not being contraverted by the appellant herein. The only defence taken by them is that the Highest policy making body viz., SIPB has also rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it being a concrete mixing plant, as per the Entry 53, the same is ineligible for grant of incentives. As the industry run by the writ petitioner is found to be not mobile in nature, the fact that it is involving in concrete mixing does not disentitle the writ petitioner from seeking the incentives for running the plant. On a proper interpretation of the language employed in Entry 53 of G.O.Ms.No.108, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant and found that the industry run by the writ petitioner being not mobile in nature, it is entitled for the incentives granted by G.O.Ms.No.108. The said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference in this appeal. There are no merits in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY ,J Date:25.08.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO.291 OF 2002 JUDGMENT DATE:25.08.2009. Gk.