IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 31686 of 2004(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY ABRAHAM, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. ABRAHAM, PROPRIETRESS, MAZHUVANNUR RUBBER PRODUCTS, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UDUMBANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, IDUKKI, CHERUTHONI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33. 3. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, THODUPUZHA. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB FOR R4 SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the registration certificate issued by the Ist respondent. Ext.P2. True copy of the Government Order dated 6.2.1992. Ext.P3. True copy of the application dated 27.9.95 submitted by the petitioner to the Deputy Chief Engineer. Ext.P4. True copy of the application dated 1.12.1999 submitted by the petitioner t the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5. True copy of communication dated 21.10.2000 sent by the Ist respondent to the petitioner. Ext.P6. True copy of the covering letter dated 8.11.2000 of the application submitted by the petitioner to the Ist respondent. Ext.P7. True copy of the application dated 8.11.2000 in the prescribed form submitted by the petitioner to the Ist respondent. Ext.P8. True copy of the current charge details dated 4.10.2000 prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section , Karimannoor Ext.P9. True copy of the certificate dated 10.10.2000 issued by the 4th respondent. Ext.P10. True copy of the certificate dated 10.1.2001 issued by the 4th respondent. Ext.P11. True copy of the calculation statement dated 10.1.2000 prepared by the Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Karimannoor. Ext.P12. True copy of the communication dated 8.11.2000 from the Ist respondent to the 4th respondent. Ext.P13. True copy of the letter dated 31.1.2001 sent from the office of the Ist respondent to the 4th respondent. Ext.P14. True copy of the complaint dated 9.5.2002 filed by the petitioner before the 6th respondent. Ext.P15. True copy of the order dated 23.5.2002 received from the 5th respondent. Ext.P16. True copy of the representation dated 3.10.2002 submitted by the petitioner to the Minister for Industries. Ext.P17. True copy of representation dated 9.2.2004 submitted by the petitioner to the Minister. // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31686 OF 2004(V) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Issue raised in this writ petition relates to the claim of the petitioner for a benefit of pre-1992 tariff announced by the Government as per Ext.P2 Government Order. By Ext.P2 Government order it was announced that the new industrial units which started commercial production from 1.1.92 to 31.12.1996 will be exempted for 5 years from payment of enhanced power tariff which came into effect from 1.1.1992. The other conditions for the grant of concession were also laid down in the said Government Order. 2. Petitioner is the proprietor of a SSI unit established in the Mini Industrial Estate, Udumbannoor in Idukki District. The unit is engaged in the manufacture of havai sheets, chappals and straps. Ext.P1 is the certificate of permanent registration issued by the Industries Department. According to the petitioner, the Unit commenced commercial production with effect from 30.4.1994 and was therefore eligible for the benefit of concession announced by Ext.P2 Government Order. WPC.No. 31686/04 :2 : 3. Claiming the benefit of Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 27.9.1995, to the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board. According to the petitioner, the application was entertained, but however, long thereafter, she was informed that the application should be made to the first respondent. Accordingly, Ext.P4 application dated 1.12.1999 was submitted to the first respondent. That application was also entertained, but however, by Ext.P5 dated 21.10.2000, petitioner was informed that the application should be in the prescribed form and that should be accompanied by a certificate of the Assistant Executive Engineer and a declaration in the prescribed form. 4. On receipt of Ext.P5, under the cover of Ext.P6 letter dated 8.11.2000, petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application in the prescribed form, claiming the benefit of pre-92 tariff for the period from 1.5.94 to 30.4.99. The application was accompanied by Ext.P7 declaration and Ext.P8, the details of the current charges remitted during the period from May 1994 to April 1999. It is stated that, Ext.P9 certificate of the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Board certifying the eligibility of the Unit was also enclosed. Subsequently, on the basis of Ext.P11 statement Ext.P10 certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer to WPC.No. 31686/04 :3 : the effect that the consumer is eligible for subsidy of Rs.2,88,946/- was also produced before the first respondent. 5. Petitioner states that in the meanwhile the first respondent issued Ext.P12 to the 4th respondent, informing that Ext.P9 certificate was defective and therefore a fresh certificate should be furnished. According to the petitioner, the first respondent again issued Ext.P13, relevant portion of which, reads as under. “M/s. Mazhuvannur Rubber Products, MIE, Udumbanoor is manufacturing hawai sheets, chappals and straps and the unit started production on 6.7.1994. Hence it was eligible to get power tariff concession for a period of 5 years from 6.7.1994 provided the unit submitted application for electricity duty concession on or before 31.3.1997 as per para 3 of GO(MS) No.14/95/PD dated 21.8.1995 of Power (A) Department. Hence I am to inform that M/s. Mazhuvannur Rubber Products, MIE, Udumbanoor was eligible for concessional power tariff and electricity duty exemption a per GO(MS) No.4/92/PD dated 6.2.1992 of power (A) Department. “ 6. Thereafter also there was no progress in the matter. In the meanwhile, the then Government was celebrating its first anniversary in office. In connection with this celebration, a public meeting was held, in which the petitioner represented for the redressal of her grievances regarding her claim for pre-92 concessional tariff. According to the petitioner, her claim was disputed pointing that the petitioner did not submit her WPC.No. 31686/04 :4 : application for pre 92 tariff and that the said objection was considered and Ext.P15 proceedings dated 23.5.2002 was issued by the District Collector directing that the delay if any on the part of the petitioner shall be condoned and that her application for pre-92 tariff should be considered on that basis. Even thereafter there was no progress in the matter and therefore, the petitioner submitted Exts.P16 and P17 representations to the Government. These representations also were not responded. It is thereupon that this writ petition was filed. Seeking directions to the respondents to grant her the benefit of pre 1992 tariff. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's unit having commenced commercial production, if not on 30.4.1994, at least on 6.7.1994 as stated in Ext.P13. Therefore she is entitled to the benefit pre-92 tariff announced by the Government as per Ext.P2 order. It is stated that the said benefit of concession should not be denied to an eligible applicant like the petitioner, who satisfies all conditions that are laid down for the said benefit. 8. Among the respondents, respondent No.3 has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed, the contention urged by the 3rd respondent is that, the Government had fixed 31.5.2000 as the cut off date for receipt of the application for WPC.No. 31686/04 :5 : tariff subsidy. It is stated that the petitioner submitted her application in the prescribed form to the first respondent only on 8.11.2000. On this basis it is contended that the petitioner having not submitted proper application within the time specified, she was not eligible for the benefit of pre-92 tariff. 9. In the light of the pleadings, the only question to be examined is whether the benefit of pre-92 tariff should be denied to the petitioner for the only reason that the application made by the petitioner is delayed, in as much as, it was submitted only on 8.11.2000 whereas the last date specified was on 31.5.2000. 10. Ext.P2 is the Government Order by which the Government announced concessional pre-92 tariff to the industries which commenced commercial production during the period from 1.1.92 to 31.12.1996. Although it is the case of the petitioner that she started commercial production on 30.4.1994, going by the contents of Ext.P13, the letter of the first respondent, the authority to certify the eligibility of a Unit, the petitioner started commercial production on 6.7.1994. It is also certified that the petitioner is eligible for concession for a period of 5 years from 6.7.1994. It is also stated that the unit is eligible for exemption from electricity duty. Thus one should proceed on the basis that on admitted facts the Unit is eligible for the benefit WPC.No. 31686/04 :6 : of Ext.P2. 11. Now as far as delay that is pointed out against the petitioner is concerned, it is not a matter of dispute that it is the first respondent is the competent authority to whom the application ought to have been made. In this case, soon after the commercial production was commenced, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application to the Deputy Chief Engineer on 27.9.1995, claiming the benefit of Ext.P2. It is true that Ext.P3 is neither in the prescribed form nor does it contain the particulars that are required to be furnished on an application claiming the benefit of Ext.P2. However, fact remains that, Ext.P3 application of the petitioner was accepted by the Deputy Chief Engineer and the same was kept pending till 1999, when the petitioner was informed that the authority competent to entertain the application is the first respondent. Immediately thereafter on 1.12.1999 petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application to the first respondent. This application was also not in the prescribed form and was not accompanied by the certificate prescribed in Ext.P2. However, herein again, the first respondent also sat over the application and it was only by Ext.P5 dated 21.10.2000 the petitioner was informed that the application was not in the prescribed forum and therefore the application should be submitted in the prescribed WPC.No. 31686/04 :7 : forum and accompanied by the documents specified in the said letter. 12. What is important to be noticed is that it was during the period when Ext.P4 application of the petitioner was pending consideration of the first respondent, that the Government issued orders fixing 31.5.2000 as the cut off date for making application for the benefit of Ext.P2. Therefore, even if it is assumed that Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner was defective, first respondent, the competent authority, whose responsibility it was to consider the application, should note have delayed the matter at his end and it should have responded immediately. As a result of the delay, by the time he issued Ext.P5, the time specified by the Government for making application for the benefit of pre 1992 tariff expired. Therefore, in the facts of this case, even if the petitioner's submitted Ext.P6 letter enclosing Ext,.P7 application in the prescribed form only on 8.11.2000, in my view the petitioner cannot be accused of having submitted a belated application and on that ground the benefit, which is legitimately due to the petitioner, could not have been denied to her. This is all the more so for the reason that even in Ext.P13 letter issued by the first respondent, the first respondent himself has certified the eligibility of petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P2. Added to this is WPC.No. 31686/04 :8 : Ext.P15 order issued by the District Collector condoning the delay on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents have unreasonably denied the benefit of Ext.P2 to the petitioner. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to quantify and disburse the benefit of pre 1992 tariff to the petitioner. This the respondents shall do as expeditiously a possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/