HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12160 of 2003
Date: October 08, 2014
Between:
M/s. Priyadarsini Spinning Mills Limited, represented by its Managing Director C.K. Rao.
… Petitioner And
1. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Ongole, Prakasam District, rep. by Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12160 of 2003
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. A representation is made on behalf of the learned standing counsel for the respondents seeking adjournment even today also. On an earlier occasion when the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted his arguments in the morning and the matter was passed over and the matter was called in the afternoon session, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation sought time till 10.06.2014 and the same was granted subject to payment of Rs.1,000/-. The said order was not complied with and today also an adjournment is sought. In view of non-compliance of the order dated 03.06.2014 and in view of the second hearing in this case, the request made on behalf of the learned standing counsel is rejected.
2. The facts of the case are very simple. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture of various varieties of yarn. It established a unit at Doddavarappadu Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District. The Government of Andhra Pradesh was granting incentives to new industries by G.O.Ms.No.654, Industries and Commerce Department dated 13.07.1976, and one of the incentives available to a new unit was 25% rebate in demand and energy charges for specified H.T. consumers from the then A.P. State Electricity Board (APSEB). The said concession was available with effect from 20.10.1975. The petitioner made an application and was granted power rebate with effect from 12.05.1992. The erstwhile APSEB in its letter dated 03.04.1995 clarified that the benefit would be available for the period up to 11.05.1995. The petitioner availed the benefit of the said rebate for a full period of three years aggregating to Rs.87.00 lakhs. While so, the petitioner received a letter dated 20.05.2003 from the respondent stating that A.G. audit has raised an objection and issued audit slip stating that 25% power rebate allowed to the petitioner should be limited to Rs.50.00 lakhs as per B.P.(Oppn. Coml) Ms.No.51, dated 24.05.1993 and the excess rebate of Rs.37.00 lakhs should be collected from the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner was directed to pay the said amount within 15 days, failing which the service connection would be disconnected. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rebate was granted on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.654, Industries and Commerce Department dated 13.07.1976, and it was for a period of three years from 28.12.1992 to 11.05.1995. The audit objection is based on a subsequent B.P.Ms.No.51 dated 24.05.1993 which cannot have retrospective effect. He relied on a decision in [1] APSEB and others V . Uni Metal Alloys Limited wherein it was held that if the promise or representation is intended to offer it for a specific period, the State or its instrumentality would be bound by the principle of promissory estoppel not to resile from the same, at least for that period.
4. A counter-affidavit is filed stating that the Board has fixed ceiling limits of Rs.50.00 lakhs in the case of large and medium industrial units and Rs.30.00 lakhs for small scale industrial units effective from 24.05.1993. But the Board had erred in continuing the power concession up to Rs.87.00 lakhs without stopping at ceiling level of Rs.50.00 lakhs under intimation to the petitioner unit. The counter is silent with regard to application of subsequent proceedings to the earlier rebate granted under a Government Order which was in vogue at that point of time.
5. The facts in this case disclose that rebate was granted to the petitioner for a period of three years from 28.12.1992 based on G.O.Ms.No.654 dated 13.07.1976. The industry does not come under the list of 73 ineligible industries for rebate. It is eligible to get power rebate. The Member Secretary of erstwhile APSEB issued a letter on 03.04.1995 pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.1995 stating that the Board will allow rebate only for three years from the date of commencement of production with effect from 12.05.1992. But later on the Board issued B.P.Ms.No.51 dated 24.05.1993 restricting the limit to Rs.50.00 lakhs only based on which the A.G. audit raised objection stating that excess rebate was allowed to the petitioner. After eight years the respondents chose to collect the excess rebate based on such audit report. B.P.Ms.No.51 dated 24.05.1993 cannot have retrospective effect and at the most it can be made applicable to the industries for the rebates granted thereafter.
6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter No.S.F.O., OGL. SAO.HT.D.No.3998/2003 dated 20.05.2003 is set aside. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: October 08, 2014 BSB 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.12160 of 2003
Date: October 08, 2014
BSB
[1] AIR 2003 AP 507