IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7184 of 2004 M/S Bishnu Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd, a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having its Head Office & Factory situated at Katihar-Purnia Road, Shershah, P.O.-Dalan, District-Katihar through one its Directors, Madan Gopal Choudhary, S/o Laxmi Chand Choudhary, Resident of Katihar-Purnia Road, Shershah, P.O.- Dalan, District-Katihar. ………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Industries, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The General Manger-cum-Chief Engineer, Koshi Electric Supply Area, Saharsa. 4. The Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Bihar. ……….Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Advocate For the State : Mr. K. Ravish, Adv. For B.S.E.B. : Mr. V.K. Singh, Adv. ------------- 9 22.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Bihar State Electricity Board as also learned counsel for the State. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer for quashing of the order dated 30th June 2003 passed by respondent No. 3, by which claim of the petitioner under the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1995 regarding exemption from payment of Monthly Minimum Guaranteed Charges has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner commenced its commercial production on 2 27.8.2001, whereas the benefit of Industrial Policy Resolution, 1995 was valid only up to 31.8.2000. The said order is contained in annexure-9 to the writ petition. The further prayer of the petitioner is that this Court may direct the respondents that the petitioner is entitled for benefit of exemption from payment of Monthly Minimum Guaranteed Charges on electricity consumption in view of Industrial Policy, 1995. The brief fact of the case is that the State Government announced its Industrial Policy, 1995 in which one of the incentives provided was exemption from payment of Monthly Minimum Guaranteed Charges for industrial units having connected load up to 500 KVA. Relying upon the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1995, the petitioner, which is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 in order to avail the benefit of Industrial Policy decided to set up a flour mills in Katihar and got its provisionally registered with Industries Department on 14.1.1999. The further case of the petitioner is that company was incorporated on 8.6.1999. In order to carry out other requirements of the industry, the petitioner procured land for 3 the aforesaid flour mills on lease on 29.5.2000. The petitioner has got itself registered with the Sales Tax Department. However, due to unavoidable reasons there occurred some delay in procuring the machinery and the petitioner could not commence its commercial production from 30.8.2000. The further case of the petitioner is that he applied for electrical connection for contract demand of 210 KVA and, accordingly, entered into an agreement with the Bihar State Electricity Board on 25.6.2001 for supply of electrical energy. Lastly, the petitioner submits that it commenced its commercial production on 27.8.2001 and, accordingly, a permanent registration certificate as a Small Scale Industry was granted by the Industries Department to it on 29.8.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for formal order for exemption from payment of Monthly Minimum Guaranteed Charges before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer in view of Industrial Policy Resolution, 1995. However, the respondent General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, vide his letter dated 30.6.2003, as contained in annexure-9 to the writ petition, rejected his claim mainly on the ground that the 4 industry had come in production on 27.8.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision dated 4.9.2008 passed in CWJC No. 2477 of 2007 (Surjit Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.), in which almost identical issue was involved and the State and Electricity Board were also parties to that case. Learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for Bihar State Electricity Board does not dispute that the order passed in CWJC No. 2477 of 2007 still holds good and has not been set aside in appeal or by higher Court. Initially, the Industrial Policy Resolution was passed by the Government being Industrial Policy, 1995. The Bihar State Electricity Board being a statutory body did not accept the same, as such, State Government was required to and did issue directions in terms of Section 78 A of the Indian Electricity Act, 1948-49. The Board, then, considered the said direction and accepted to grant the incentive under the said policy for the policy period as mentioned therein. The policy as originally resolved was valid up to August 2000, but, thereafter, there was delay on part of the government to come with a clear policy. 5 Considering that the State Government took decision, which was approved by the State Cabinet, wherein it was decided to extend the benefits till the new policy was formulated, meaning thereby, as the policy was originally expiring in August, 2000, it was extended till the next policy come in the said resolution of the Cabinet. It was clearly resolved that no fresh notification or circular was necessary to effectuate this extension. The notification dated 11.1.2002 has been brought on record as annexure-8 to this writ petition. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, this Court in CWJC No. 2477 of 2007 held that Prima facie, Board by its resolution had agreed to implement the Industrial Policy, 1995 and once the policy was extended waiting a new policy by the State automatically the benefits would be applicable for an extended period. It is submitted that even in the subsequent Industrial Policy i.e. 2003-06, electrical incentives were maintained and is being honoured by the Electricity Board. Thus, there is no reason as to why those incentives would not be available in interregnum period. This Court in the earlier writ petition, being 6 CWJC No. 2477 of 2007 has held the intention of the State was not to discontinue, but, to continue the policy of incentive. Hence, following the decision of this Court passed in CWJC No. 2477 of 2007 (supra), the order as contained in annexure-9 to the writ petition, passed by the General Manger-cum-Chief Engineer, Kosi Electric Supply Area, Saharsa, is hereby set aside and the matter is being remanded back to him to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order dated 4.9.2008 passed in CWJC No. 2477 of 2007. The petitioner would file a representation along with a copy of the present order as also order passed on 4.9.2008 in CWJC No. 2477 of 2007 before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer concerned within a period of three weeks and the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer concerned would, thereafter, pass a reasoned order in this regard, taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove as also taking into consideration the spirit of the order passed on 4.9.2008 in CWJC No. 2477 of 2007. Let the order dated 4.9.2008 which has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner be kept on record. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. )