IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 22268 of 2008 Between: T.S.R. Cold Storage Private Ltd., rep. by its M.D. T.Sidda Reddy, TSR Nagar, NH-5, Varagali Cross Road, Chillakuru, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary, Agrl. Co- operation (A.M.I.I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of marketing, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 A.P. Transco, rep. by its Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the GO Rt.No.968 Agriculture and Co-operation (A.M.II) Department dated 6-8-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to grant 25% rebate in electricity charges as per GO Ms.No.211, Agriculture and Cooperation (Mktg.II) Department dated 2-7-1999 and grant the benefit in monthly power bills, of the petitioner unit and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.22268 OF 2008 ORDER The petitioner is a Cold Storage Plant functioning at Chillakuru, Nellore District w.e.f. 24-03-2001. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.968, Agriculture and Co-operation (A.M.II) Department dated.06-08-2008 rejecting the request of the petitioner to allow 25% rebate in power bills as per G.O.Ms.No.211, Agriculture and Co-operation (Marketing.II) Department, dated.02.07.1999 is arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.5708 of 2004 and the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated.27-04- 2007 with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass a reasoned order on the representation made by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order came to be passed holding that 25% power rebate as per G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999 read with G.O.Ms.No.108, dated.20- 05-1996 which was in operation from 01-07-1999 to 31-03-2000 cannot be allowed since the petitioner-firm started its commercial operations only from 24-03-2001. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner-unit started its commercial operations after the closure of the scheme on 31-03-2000 is illegal since the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999 which came into operation w.e.f. 01-07-1999 remained in force up to 31-03-2001. Though no counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture vehemently contended that G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999 has to be read with G.O.Ms.No.108 dated.20-05-1996 which was in operation between 01-07-1999 to 31-03- 2000 and consequently the 25% power rebate is available only to those units which started functioning during the said period. It is contended that since admittedly the petitioner-Unit commenced its commercial operation from 24.03.2001 the impugned order was rightly passed rejecting the petitioner’s request for 25% rebate in power bills. On a careful consideration of the material on record, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Government Pleader. Under G.O.Ms.No.108, Industries and Commerce Department dated.20-05-1996 it was decided by the Government to introduce a new industrial policy called TARGET-2000 in order to accelerate the industrial development of the State. As per the said policy certain incentives were given to the industrial units in the State which included rebate in electricity charges. Clause.6.04 provided that all new industries will be eligible to 25% rebate in power bills for a period of three(3) years from the date of commencement of commercial production and that the rebate shall be allowed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board in their monthly bills. It is not in dispute that G.O.Ms.No.108 dated.20.05.1996 was in operation from 15-11-1998 up to 31-03-2000. Subsequently for the purpose of promoting the growth of Cold Storage Units in the State a new scheme was introduced under G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999. The said scheme known as A.P. State Agriculture Marketing Committees Capital Investment Scheme for Cold Storage Units/Cold Chains 1999 came into operation w.e.f. 01-07-1999 and remained in force up to 31-03-2001. Apart from capital investment subsidy of 25%, the said scheme also provided 25% rebate in power bills for a period of three(3) years from the date of commencement of commercial production with a maximum total admissible rebate of Rs.30 lacs. Clause.10 of G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999 also made it clear that the rebate shall be allowed by the APSEB in their monthly bills. A plain reading of the above said two Government orders shows that whereas G.O.Ms.No.108 dated.20-05-1996 introduced an industrial policy for industrial development of the State in general, under G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999 a special scheme was introduced to promote the growth of Cold Storage Units in the State granting similar incentives as granted in G.O.Ms.No.108 dated.20-05-1996. The operative period of the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999 was from 01-07-1999 to 31.03.2001. Sofar as 25% rebate allowed in power bills under G.O.Ms.No.211, dated.02-07-1999 is concerned, the method of allowing such rebate was prescribed by granting the rebate in the monthly bills as was provided in G.O.Ms.No.108, dated.20-05-1996. In that context though there was a reference to G.O.Ms.No.108 in clause.10 of the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.211 dated.02-07-1999, it has nothing to do with the operative period of scheme under G.O.Ms.No.211 dated.02-07-1999 and on that ground the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.211 cannot be restricted up to 31-03-2000. Hence the conclusion of the 1st respondent that the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.211 came to an end on 31-03-2000 itself is erroneous. As specified under Clause.2 of the scheme under G.O.Ms.No.211, the said scheme was in force up to 31-03-2001. Hence the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim for 25% rebate in power bills on the ground that it commenced its commercial operation after the expiry of the scheme is illegal and unsustainable. Accordingly the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 18th November,2008 *TSNR