^ Singfe Bench IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR . ^oZ^ WRIT PETITION fC) No. OF 2011 PETITIONER /" M/s Jagdamba Power & Alloys Limited, through its Director Shri Arun Poddar, S/o Shri Hari Ram Poddar, aged about 42 years, resident of 15/302-Ashoka Ratna, Vidhan Sabha, Road, Raipur, having its registered office at G-16, Hira Arcade, Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPQJMDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through; The Secretary, Department of Industries, \r^ ^ ^>M. \f^" <?<^' 2. ^s^} 'y'^y ^•y'. .•s? ^^..- .-.f'' .'!••••' 3.' 4. Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Chief Electrical Inspectorate, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Superintending Engineer (Electrical Safety) & Chief Electric Inspector, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The Tehsildar, Dharseeva, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MAWDAMUS, CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER _WRIT/WRITS OR ORDER/ORDERS OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS_OF THE LIKE ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BJLASPUR WRTT PETmON (C) No. 4085_of2011 PETmONER : M/s. Jagdamba Power & Alloys Ltd. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others. WRH' PETTHON UNDER AR'IICLE 226 OF THE CONSnTUIION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General forthe State/respondents. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 28th day ofJuly, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of Revenue Recovery Certificate issued oa 28.06.2011 (Armexure P/9), by the Additional Tahsildar, Dharsiwa, District Raipur. Further to hold that the petitioner company is not liable to pay electricity duty as total exemption has been provided by the Industrial Policy for the year 2004 to 2009, being Special Thrust Industry iavolved in power generation from non- conventional source. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petttioner submits that tfae petitioner is a thrust industry, as laid down in the State Industrial Policy, 2004-09, petitioner having established a non-conventional power generation plant in the year 2006. He fiirther submits tfaat under the State Industrial Policy, in para 3 relating to Eleetricity Duty Exemption, the petitioner is eatitled to total exemption for fhe period of 10 years from fhe date of commencement of commercial production. Leamed counsel also submits that having declared such exemption, the respondent cannot refiise and there&re, the petitioner is entitled to exemption from electricitv dutv. It is farther submitted when demand notice was issued, the petitioner made f -5. representation to the Chief Electi-icai Iiispector, claunmg exemption from payment of electricity duty, but petitioner's application for exemption from payment of electricity duty has not been considered nor any decision has been taken aad instead, proceedin^ for reeovery has been issued against the petitioner. From the averments made in the petition, it is found that the petitioner claims to have established a non-conventional energy generation unit in the year 2007. The Industrial Policy for the year 2004 to 2009 provides for exemption with regard to payment ofelectricity duty for all fhrust industries as contained in para 3 thereof. Therefore, the claim o^ flie petitioner does not appear to be frivolous and requires consideration. In these circumstanees, I deem it expedient to direct fhe Chief Electrical Inspector-respondent No.2 to deeide petitioner's claim for exemption from payment of electricity duty, in accordance wifh law. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit Iresh representation along with relevant details before respondent No.2, within a period of one month from today. Qn such representation made, respondent No.2 shall decide petitioner's claim for eligibility. Until the claim of the petitioner for erant ofexemption is decided, no coercive steps shall be taken by any of fhe respondents to recover electricity duty under demand notice. Accordinelv. tfae writ netition is disposed of. Amit Sd/- SATBH K. ANGNMORI Judge T~ 1