IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos. 456 of 2005 & 2188 of 2003 W.P.No.456 of 2005: Between: I.K. OIls, 136/B-1, Basapuram Road Adoni, Kurnool District, A Proprietary Concern rep by Proprietrix Smt. Anjana K. Shah, rep by through her GPA Holder, Narendra Kumar K. Shah, S/o Inderchand Kesrimal, R/o Adoni ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. TRANSCO, rep by Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad 2 Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDC Ltd., Kurnool 3 Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Kurnool, district Kurnool .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or Orders, Direction or Directions declaring the action of the Respondents in denying the Rebate of 25% on Demand and energy charges to the petitioenr Industry for a period of 3 years in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 108 dated 20-5-1996 and also G.O.Ms. No. 11 dated 16-1-1997 and T.O.O.No. 36 dated 8-3-1999as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to grant rebate of 25% on Demand and energy charges for a period of 3 years from 04-8-2000 and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: . Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} WRIT PETITION No.2188 of 2003 Between: K.K.Detergents,Thimmapur village,Kothur Mandal Mahaboobnagar District Rep.by its Managing Partner Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jain. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Transco Rep.by its Managing Director Vidyut Soudha Khairtabad Hyderabad 2 Superintendent, Engineer,Operation Circle A.P.Transco,Mahabobnagar District Mahaboobnagar. 3 Senior Accounts Officer,Operation Circle,Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited,Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction or directions declaring the action of the Respondents in denying the Rebate of 25% on Demand and Energy Charges to the petitioner Industry for a period of 3 years in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 20-5-1996 and also G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 16-1- 1997 and T.O.O.No.36, dated 8-3-1999 as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to grant Rebate of 25% on Demand and Energy Charges for a period of 3 years from 13-7-2000 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos. 456 of 2005 & 2188 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: Heard both the counsel. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are small scale industries, established for the purpose of manufacturing of edible oils and Detergent Cakes. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.108, Industries & Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20.05.1996, announcing a New Industrial Policy, granting 25% rebate in the power charges subject to maximum of Rs.30 lakhs for a period of three years from the date of commencement of commercial production and the rebate will be allowed by the A.P.State Electricity Board in their monthly bills. It is stated that as per the list of ineligible industries annexed to the said G.O., all process of edible oil seeds/cakes viz. Groundnut, Sesam, Safflower, Rape Seed/Mustard, coconut (both tender & dry), Sunflower, Niger, Cotton seed etc. industries are not eligible for 25% rebate in the electricity charges. It is stated that the Government, on several representations made by small scale industries, issued G.O.Ms.No.11, Industries & Commerce (I.P) Department, dated 16.01.1997, agreeing to grant rebate in electricity charges up to 25% to all the new industrial units. Now there is no dispute that pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 16.01.1997, allowing 25% concessional power tariff to the new industrial units, the petitioners industries, being new industrial units, are entitled for 25% rebate. Accordingly, the Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited also issued orders in T.O.O.(Comml.) No.36, dated 08.03.1999 allowing 25% power tariff for a period of 3 years from the date of release of power supply. It is stated that, however, the claim of the petitioners for the grant of rebate in the power charges was rejected by the respondents on two grounds that the petitioners are ineligible industries as per the list of ineligible industries annexed to G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20.05.1996 and the power supply was not utilized within the target year of 2000 i.e. before 31.03.2000. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the amended G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 16.01.1997, the Government decided to grant 25% concessional power tariff to all the new industrial units for a period of 3 years from the date of release of power or going into commercial production whichever is later and therefore, there cannot year of restriction. It is brought to the notice of this Court that this Court in similar facts and circumstances, allowed W.P.No.15791 of 2001 by order dated 21.01.2002, holding that the small scale industries are entitled for grant of rebate at 25% in the monthly bills for a period of three years from the date of release of power supply, in whose case also the power supply was given in December 2000. In the instant case also the power supply was given in the case of petitioner in WP.456 of 2005 on 04.08.2000 though the production has been started with the help of generator from 04.05.2000, and in the case of the petitioner in W.P.2188 of 2003, the power supply was given on 13.07.2000 though the production was started with the help of generator from 13.03.2000. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners in both the writ petitions are entitled for the rebate in the power tariff. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for, setting aside the impugned orders. The petitioner in W.P.456 of 2005 is entitled for grant of rebate at 25% on the monthly bills for a period of three years from the date of release of power supply i.e. from 04.08.2000, and the petitioner in W.P.2188 of 2003 is entitled for grant of rebate at 25% on the monthly bills for a period of three years from the date of release of power supply i.e. from 13.07.2000, and each of the petitioner is entitled to the maximum admissible rebate of Rs.30 lakhs for the total three years as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20.05.1996 and as per the categorization of the Industries. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 03.04.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 A.P. TRANSCO, rep by Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad 2 Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle, APCPDC Ltd., Kurnool 3 Senior Accounts Officer, Operation Circle, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Kurnool, district Kurnool 4 A.P.Transco Rep.by its Managing Director Vidyut Soudha Khairtabad Hyderabad 5 Superintendent, Engineer,Operation Circle A.P.Transco,Mahabobnagar District Mahaboobnagar. 6 Senior Accounts Officer,Operation Circle,Central Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited,Mahaboobnagar Mahaboobnagar District. 7. 2CCs to 8. 2CD copies