9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates, with them), for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by G.B. PATTANAIK, C.J.I.-These appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated April 6, 2001. The appellant approached the High Court of Kerala claiming that it would be entitled to the concessional tariff under the policy of the Government and approved by the Board even though the actual commercial production of the appellant's factory started in 1998. The High Court in the impugned judgment accepted the stand of the State Government that in order to be eligible to get the concessional tariff under the policy in question, commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal tariff as indicated in industrial policy resolution, would be available if the commercial production is made between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1996. The appellant industry was issued the registration certificate by the District Industries Centre, on December 27, 1993. In April, 1994, Government issued another G.O. (Ms.), confirming that the industries registered prior to December 31, 1993 will continue to enjoy the tariff concession and exemption from payment of electricity duty. The State Electricity Board issued a letter on November 7, 1995 to the appellant industry, allocating power in their favour. In its letter dated March 13, 1996, the said Kerala State Electricity Board confirmed that the appellant will be entitled to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Board granted power to the appellant's company on October 22, 1998. In the first week of November, 1998 the appellant got the bill from the Board at the regular rate without the benefit of the concessional tariff as indicated in the industrial policy of the Government and also adopted by the Board. The appellant, therefore, approached the High Court and the High Court by an interim order directed that the appellant would be demanded the tariff on the basis of the prevalent rate prior to January 1, 1992. But the power connection had been cut off on account of non-payment of the electricity charges. The High Court then passed an order that on payment of Rs. 50 lacs by the appellant, the electric connection would be given by its order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein that the concessional power tariff and electricity duty to industries would be supplied as a measure of incentive to all the units who start their commercial production between January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1996, irrespective of the day of permanent electric connection. On November 7, 1995, the Kerala State Electricity Board intimated to the appellant that in principle sanction of power had been accorded to the extent of 15 MVA at 110 KV to the appellant's factory premises at Pudussery Village and the power can be availed and will be operational with peak load restrictions only after commissioning of 220 KV sub-station at Kanjikode. But notwithstanding the same, the Board having not taken any steps to see that the power supply is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as on behalf of the Board, vehemently argued that the language of the policy issued by the Government and adopted by the State Electricity Board was unequivocal and such policy clearly stipulated that only those units which would start commercial production between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1996 would be entitled to the concessional tariff indicated in the policy. Since admittedly the appellant's manufacturing unit did not start commercial production within the stipulated period, the benefit of the concessional tariff under the policy has rightly been denied and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. According to Mr. Rohtagi, even if for certain laches on the part of the Board, the appellant may be entitled to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as the State Government cannot be held to be devoid of any substance when admittedly the commercial production of the appellant's unit did not start till December 31, 1996. But the question for consideration is when the Government has itself come forward alluring industrial units to set up their industries and when under the provisions of the Electricity Act, every consumer has the right to get the supply of power and in the case in hand, when power allocation has been made in favour of the appellant as early as in 1995, and yet the same power could not be supplied for such non-supply of power, the commercial production could not start by December 31, 1996, would it at all be equitable to deny the relief to the appellant by giving a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
