IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5499 of 2002 M/S SSF INDUSTRIES LTD, a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at first floor, opposite Catholic Church, Ashok Raj Path, Patna-4 to one of its Director Shri P.K. Agrawal. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Danapur Electrical Circle, Danapur, Distt.- Patna. 3. The Finance Controller (Revenue), Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Revenue), Khajpura, Patna. 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Danapur Division, Danapur, Distt.- Patna. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 15/ 08.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board. In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2002 passed by the respondent Finance Controller, whereby he has held that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption from minimum guarantee charges.The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to refund the amount of AMG charges calculated for the period 20.02.1996 to 20.03.2000. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in manufacturing Polytubes in his factory at Nasariganj, Patna. The petitioner started his factory on 08.06.1989 with a connected load of 30 HP and thus came under the category of Low Tension Industrial Service (hereinafter referred to LTIS). According to the petitioner, he undertook the scheme of modernization and expansion of the then existing unit and completed the same on 20.02.1996. A certificate granted by General Manager – cum – Chief Engineer, has been annexed as Annexure-1. On the application of - 2 - the petitioner, the connected load was enhanced to 60 HP on 06.10.1995 The Board issued a circular on 11.10.1996 granting certain incentives and exemptions to units falling under 1993 and 1995 Industrial policy. The petitioner states that though it qualified for exemption from payment of Minimum Base Charge / Minimum Guarantee charge for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of supply to such unit, still bill was raised on the basis of minimum base charge from February, 1996 onwards. The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 12936 of 2001 for redressal of his grievance. This Court vide order dated 26.11.2001 directed the Financial Controller (Revenue) to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his representation, which was disposed of by the Financial Controller (Revenue) by his order dated 07.02.2002. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order of respondent no.-3, Financial Controller (Revenue), in this application. The petitioner submits that his representation was disallowed only on the ground that the petitioner did not take prior permission from Director of Industries before undertaking modernization and expansion scheme. The petitioner further submits that his unit was Small Scale Unit, the General Manager of District Industries Centre was competent to grant such certificate and approval. He submits that if General Manager, District Industries Centre, was not competent to grant such certificate, he should have referred the matter to the Director of Industries for the needful. He further submits that 1995 policy does not essentially provide taking of prior permission - 3 - from the Director of Industries. Counsel for the Board submits that letter no. 652 dated 11.10.1996 was issued in view of both 1993 and 1995 policies, as such petitioner ought to have obtained the prior approval of Director of Industries before taking expansion / modernization scheme. Having heard the counsel for the parties. The Industrial Policies of 1993 as well as 1995 provides both promotional and fiscal benefits. So far as fiscal benefits are concerned, the provisions of the policies are to be construed as provided thereunder. Clause 24 of the Policy provides that in order to avail the incentives prior permission of Director of Industries will have to be obtained in cases of expansion / diversification. The Board has implemented the incentives policies framed by the Government under Section 78 A of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is not in dispute that no prior permission of the Director of Industry was taken before undertaking expansion scheme. In this view of the matter, it is difficult for this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2002 passed by respondent no.3, Finance Controller (Revenue) Bihar State Electricity Board. However, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Government for redressal of his grievance. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)