@#@#@#@#@#@#@ HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO:2098 of 2004 DATED: 15-02-2008 Between: M/s.M.G.Automotive Private Ltd., a private Ltd., Company having its Office at Mahaindraprastha Estate, National High way No.9, Buchinelly village, Zaheerabad, Medak Dist., rep.by its Director Mr.Jayaram Shetty ..... PETITIONER AND 1. A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited, rep.by the Director (Commercial & HR) and another .....RESPONDENTS @#@#@#@#@#@#@ ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order dated 27-08-2003 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner as illegal and void, and consequently, to direct the first respondent to extend the benefit of power rebate to the petitioner. The petitioner is maintaining a bus body building unit. The District Industries Centre issued a certificate to the effect that the said industry does not come within the ineligible categories of industries and the petitioner industry is entitled for the rebate of 25% in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20-05-1996. The respondents opposed the application on the ground that the industry of the petitioner comes under item No.40 of the ineligible industries listed in the schedule annexed to the GO, therefore, they are not entitled for extending the rebate offered by the Government. Item No.40 of the ineligible list of industries is Steal Structural and Fabrication Works other than Heavy Structurals whereas the petitioner manufactures bus body building and automobile seats. When the Industrial Centre gave the eligibility certificate categorically mentioning that the unit of the petitioner will not come under the prohibited categories, the respondents cannot interpret and say that it will come under item No.40 of the ineligible category of industries. Therefore, the respondents are obligated to extend the rebate of 25%. In the light of the certificate issued by the Industrial Centre, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of 25% rebate in power consumption as per the terms and conditions of the GO. I do find sufficient force in the contention of the petitioner, therefore, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the first respondent-company dated 27-08-2003. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the order dated 27-08-2003 of the first respondent is set aside. However, it is made clear that it is for the respondents to examine whether the petitioner is eligible for the rebate or not and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _________________ 15th February, 2008 SKM