F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the appellant. The challenge is to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.1999, passed in W.P.No.19331 of 1997. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in that writ petition.
2. The challenge in the writ petition was to the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.190, Energy (A2) Department, dated 11.12.1997 and while seeking to quash the said G.O., the first respondent prayed for a direction to the appellant, as well as, the State Government to forbear from collecting the normal High Tension Tariff with effect from 28.04.1996.
3. There was another writ petition filed by the Workers' Union of the first respondent in W.P.No.151 of 1998 for a similar relief.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed both the writ petitions. There was also a direction to refund part of the amount deposited by the first respondent during the pendency of the writ petitions.
5. The brief facts which are required to be stated are, the first respondent company was under the grip of B.I.F.R. and it was declared as a "sick industrial company" under Section 3(1)(o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. Though there were certain attempts made earlier to revive the company, the same did not fructify.
6. At the instance of the first respondent company, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.165, Industries Department dated 28.04.1992 and decided to grant certain concessions for settlement of arrears of electricity charges by granting moratorium for a period of one year as well as instalment facilities. It also came forward to show some concession by reducing the rate of current consumption charges to Re.1/- per KWH including electricity tax for a period of four years. It also came forward to grant sales tax deferral for a period of five years from the date of reopening of the unit.
7. Thereafter, a rehabilitation proposal came to be considered by the B.I.F.R. in the year 1994, at the instance of a new promoter. When the B.I.F.R. wanted the State of Tamil Nadu for extension of the concessions, which the State Government came forward to grant in G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 28.04.1992, the State Government in its letter dated 21.12.1994, agreed to grant the very same reliefs/concessions. It also came forward to grant further concessions.
8. The B.I.F.R. passed its orders on 23.12.1994, approving and sanctioning the fresh rehabilitation scheme submitted by the new promoter, wherein, the concessions inter alia contained the concessions which were originally proposed and subsequently added were all noted. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37, Industries Department, dated 10.02.1995, incorporating the concessions originally proposed in G.O.Ms.No.165, dated 28.04.1992, as well as, the other concessions which it came forward to extend at the time of consideration of the rehabilitation scheme.
9. The first respondent commenced its manufacturing operations on and from 21.02.1995. Though initial billing to the current consumption charges was made at the regular rate, based on the representation of the first respondent, the concessional rate of current consumption charges were implemented. It was only thereafter, the appellant Board approached the State Government in the month of September and October, 1997 and wanted the State Government to allow the Board to charge the first respondent company at the normal High Tension Tariff on par with other industrial consumers. In response to the said representation, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.190, Energy Department, dated 11.12.1997, withdrawing the concessions on the footing that the concessions were to operate only between 28.04.1992 and 27.04.1996 i.e. for a period of four years and thereafter it was permissible for the appellant Board to collect the normal High Tension Tariff from the first respondent w.e.f. 28.04.1996.
10. The said G.O. came to be challenged by the first respondent in W.P.No.19331 of 1997, where the impugned order dated 25.11.1999, came to be passed by the learned Judge.
11. In the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Judge set aside the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.190, Energy Department, dated 11.02.1997 by holding that the concessions granted by the Government for four years would commence from the date of starting of the production by the first respondent. The learned Judge also rejected the alternate contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the period of four years would start from 30.09.1994, which is the assumed cut-off date mentioned in the sanctioned scheme dated 23.12.1994.
12. Assailing the order of the learned Judge, Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant submitted that under the rehabilitation scheme, while mentioning the reliefs/concessions offered by the various parties viz., Financial Institutions, preferential shareholders, State Government, Central Government, labourers and the promoters, it was specifically provided