THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO :10460 OF 2002 DATED 19-01-2010 Between: D.R.Hotels Pvt.Limited, Rep.,by its Director, Nellore. … PETITIONER And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Secretary, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Agriculture (Tourism) Department, Hyderabad & another. ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order, dated 14-04-2002, misinterpreting G.O.Ms.No.6, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Tourism Department) dated 18-12-1998, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for A.P.Transco appearing for the respondents. 3. It appears, petitioner is the Director of D.R.Hotels Private Limited, Nellore, which has been registered as a special project under the tourism policy; after the Tourism departmental personnel inspected and recommended for the same. Further, the said hotel is permanently registered under the New Tourism Policy, 1998 vide Order No.2780/A3/2001, dated 20-02-2002 of Tourism department, Government of A.P. 4. According to the petitioner, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.6, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Tourism Department) dated 18-12-1998, wherein certain incentives were announced to hotels and restaurants, which include the rebate of 25% of electricity bills for the first three years. For releasing the benefits or the incentives given to the hotels, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 24-03-2002, expressing their intention to utilize the incentives given under G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 18-12-1998, with effect from 01-03-2000 to 2005. However, the case of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent by an order, dated 14-04-2002, on the ground that the benefit of 25% rebate on power bills was applicable only for the services rendered up to 31-03-2000 and not beyond. However, it is stated that fresh governmental instructions are awaited and therefore the petitioner may have to wait till the rebate of 25% on electricity bills is made applicable in case of his hotel, under the Tourism policy of 1998. 5. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent mis- interpreted the G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 18-12-1998. In fact, the G.O. is applicable straightaway and rebate of 25% on electricity bills can be allowed. Therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting its case is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, this Writ Petition. 6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed, on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 18-12-1998, had declared New Tourism Policy extending certain incentives like investment subsidy, rebate in power tariff and tax holiday etc., to the eligible units set up in the notified and special tourism areas. However, the said G.O. was kept in abeyance vide G.O.Ms.No.233, YAT & C (PMU) department, dated 18-12-2002. Subsequently, the Government vide Memo No.5701/T(A2)/2001, dated 04-01-2003 of YAT & C (PMU) department communicated to all the eligible units, mentioned in the address entry, informing that in extending the rebate in power tariff, certain technical problems arose and they are already taken up with the concerned authorities for taking a decision, and the matter has been referred to the State Level Committee, and the Committee has not taken any decision as of today. As soon as decision is taken, the same will be communicated to all the eligible units mentioned. 7. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation, purported to have been filed by the petitioner seeking rebate of 25% on electricity tariff, if any decision has been taken by the Government and as per the policy subsisting as of today and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU,J 19th January, 2010. Tsy