IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12678 of 2010 1. M/S BALMUKUND CONCAST LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 108, KALYANI COMPLEX, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA- 800001 THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AJAY KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA, S/O LATE LOK NATH JHUNJHUNWALA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 3. GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER CENTRAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY AREA, 8 SERPENTINE ROAD, PATNA, DISTT.- PATNA 4. CHIEF ENGINEER (COMMERCIAL) BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 5. ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PATNA CIRCLE, PATNA 6. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 03. 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The relief is sought is for commanding the Board to give exemption from A.M.G./M.M.G that is M.M.C. (minimum monthly charges) to the petitioner’s industrial unit as it qualifies for the benefit under the Industrial Incentive Policy, Bihar 2006 with effect from 1.4.2006 till 31.3.2011. Further relief is sought to calculate its liabilities on the aforesaid basis and refund the excess amount paid since 1.4.2006 towards the energy bill. As also to rectify the calculations made on 31.5.2010 by the Electrical Executive Engineer, who has assessed the minimum monthly charges on basis of contract demand per month which was not 2 inconsonance with the Industrial Incentive Policy. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4615 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 12726 of 2009 had noticed a similar controversy and observed that both the petitioner and the Electricity Board appear to having their own interpretations of the Industrial Policy 2006, more particularly Clause-I (XIII) which deals with exemption from A.M.G./M.M.G. It was observed that the policy had been framed by the State Government. What passed the mind of the State Government when it framed the policy, what its true intent, purpose purport and scope was is a matter better known to the State Government itself. The respondents Board was only required to act under the policy. It was further noticed that the policy decision provided for the constitution of a committee for monitoring and review of the policy in the manner prescribed therein. The respondents Board was a member of the committee also. The Court further observed therein its disappointment of the manner in which the State Government had filed its counter affidavit in a dispute with regard to the interpretation of the Industrial Incentive Policy which was cryptic and hardly in seven paragraphs observing that perhaps if the State officials would have been a little more careful, the Court may 3 not have been burdened with the avoidable litigation. The Court then observed “if the policy provided for a constitution of a committee, there is no occasion for the Court to usurp the powers of the committee. The jurisdiction of the Court may or may not be after the committee applies its mind”. This writ application is likewise disposed with similar directions to the Secretary Industries to constitute the committee forthwith upon presentation of a copy of this order before him and after due opportunity to the petitioner to represent their case, pass a reasoned and speaking order on the mode, method, manner and intent of the incentive to be granted to the petitioner preferably within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim protection granted by the Court on 31.8.2010 may be directed to be made available to the petitioner in continuity. Since the Court is disposing off the writ application, it may not be proper for the Court to pass an interim order which shall continue operate the disposal of the writ application. That shall be a matter for appropriate consideration by the committee itself. If the petitioner 4 along with his application seeks interim relief before the committee and relies on the order of the Court dated 31.8.2010, the committee is expected to decide the issue of interim relief within a maximum period of one week from the date of receipt/production of such application before it. Any delay in constitution of the committee by the respondents cannot be a justification for penal again against the petitioner. The application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)