IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO :1170 of 2000 Between: 1. A.P. State Electricity Board rep., by its Member Secretary, Vidyutsoudha, Hyderabad and others. ..... APPELLANT AND M/s. Sri Sai Glass Private Limited, rep., by its Managing Director and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1170 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present appeal is preferred against the order, dated 23.8.2000 passed in W.P.No.8671 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner and the appellants are the respondents in the above writ petition. The 1st respondent herein filed the above writ petition challenging the proceedings issued by the Superintending Engineer, Operations Circle, APSEB, Sangareddy, Medak District, refusing to grant 25% rebate on electricity charges as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.108 Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20.5.1996. It is the case of the writ petitioner-unit that at the time of purchase of the petitioner-unit, it was a non-functioning unit and subsequent to its purchase, new machinery was purchased and that on a representation made to the Board, electrical energy was released, but however, Board intimated that the writ petitioner is not entitled to 25% rebate. According to the writ petitioner-unit, by virtue of industrial policy issued in G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20.5.1996, it is entitled to 25% rebate on electricity charges and it has obtained the certificate from the District Industries Center, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, to the effect that it is entitled to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20.5.1996. On the other hand, it is the case of the Board that the previous owner was in arrears to a tune of Rs.18 lakhs and the writ petitioner having entered into an agreement and running the same type of production as was run by the earlier owner, cannot be said to be a new industry and the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.108 cannot be extended to the writ petitioner. The learned single Judge having observed that the Government in its policy constituted District Industries Center to issue appropriate certificate to claim the benefit under G.O.No.108 and when once the District Industries had notified that the writ petitioner being a new industry entitled to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20.5.1996, it becomes final and the Board has to necessarily extend 25% rebate in accordance with terms and conditions therein and it would be inappropriate for the Board to contend that the writ petitioner is not a new industry and that would virtually amount to interfering with the policy of the Government, allowed the writ petition directing the Board to grant 25% rebate to the writ petitioner-unit and adjust the same in future bills subject to limits laid down in G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20.5.1996. Having aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the Board. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. When the matter has come up for hearing, Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent- writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner-unit was closed long back and it did not avail 25% rebate and hence, the adjustment in future bills would not arise and the matter has become infructuous. On the other hand, Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that he has no instructions with regard to the closure of the unit. In view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-writ petitioner that the writ petitioner-unit was closed long back and it did not avail 25% rebate, we feel that there cannot be any grievance of the appellant-Board. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make it clear that if the Board has any material to show that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner-unit is running and it has availed 25% rebate, the appellant-Board is at liberty to file an appropriate application for modification of the order of the learned single Judge. Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Dated: 6.10.2009 Nn THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.A. No.1170 OF 2000 (Judgment delivered by the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 6th October. 2009