Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board and others vs Venus Hotel and others

The appellant-Electricity Board has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge directing them to implement the State policy issued by G.O. Ms. No.31, dated 30-4-1994 providing for concessional sale of electricity to the consumer of the notified area.

The respondent No.1 is running a hotel in Khammam town which is recognised as a notified area for concessions specified in G.O. Ms. No.31, dated 30-4-1994 read with G.O. Ms. No.83, dated 14-11-1994 whereby the consumer of electricity in a tourism notified area would be entitled to 25% rebate on the power consumed by him. Concedingly the respondent No.l is the consumer of power and running a hotel and is entitled to 25% rebate on the bills under the appropriate Government policy.

The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that the policy of the Government issued under the above said Government Order is a direction u/s 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and has been issued with an object to encourage tourism industry in the State. Consequently, the Electricity Board is bound to implement the same. It was further observed that as the power of the State is traceable to the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, mere non-mentioning of Section 78A of the Act in the Government Order is immaterial. It was also found that a reading of G.O. Ms. No.31 in pith and substance would show the policy matter and it has been specifically provided that the rebate shall be allowed by the Electricity Board in their monthly bills to the consumers. The learned single Judge, thus, came to the conclusion that the direction issued by the State in respect of rebate is valid and the Electricity Board is bound to follow apart from the fact that the respondent No. 1 has acted on his legitimate and just expectation with respect to his entitlement of the concession under the said Government Order.

The appellant-Electricity Board impugned the judgment of the learned single Judge inter alia on the ground that the Electricity Board having not adopted the policy decision issued by the Government, are not bound to follow the same. The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the broad history of origin of rebates to the effect that on 20-9-1975 the Electricity Board issued B.P. Ms. No.689, dated 17-9-1975 revising the tariff. On 13-7-1976, G.O. Ms. No.654 of Commerce & Industries Department was issued to the effect that the revised power tariff notified by the Electricity Board with effect from 20-10-1975 offers a rebate of 25% on the demand of energy charges for specified high tension consumers as an incentive to new industries for the first three years from the date of their going into production and the Director of Industries desired to notify the list of industries which will not be eligible for concession in power tariff resulting in the notification of various industries not entitled to 25% rebate which resulted in granting of rebate to the specified industries as per the decision of the Electricity Board. The learned Counsel vehemently argued that the Electricity Board has received no direction from the Government to allow 25% rebate to the new industries either u/s 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act or in any manner of request, suggestion or communication sent by the Government. Later in 1987 mini steel plants and some more industries are taken out of the entitlement for concession. The withdrawal of concession to various industries is not in dispute before us. It is purely academic and we need not express any opinion whether such a concession can be withdrawn or not, or, in what set of circumstances the same can be withdrawn.

In our considered view the learned single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that G.O. Ms. No.31, dated 30-4-1994 was a policy decision issued by the State Government granting concession. It is the just expectation of the citizen that the policy decision of the State would be carried out by all its instrumentalities without any reservation and if they have got any difficulty they will approach the appropriate authority for its modification which is not the case in hand. Mere non-mentioning of a statutory provision in a policy decision would not render the policy voidable ab initio or unenforceable in law. Concedingly, the policy decision on the facts does apply to the respondents. The only ground that it was not adopted by the Electricity Board does not denude the respondent No. 1 from the right to the concession on the basis of which the respondent No. 1 has established the industry nor it would be a ground for the appellant-Electricity Board to decline the concession to which the respondent is entitled as a State policy. In the eventuality of permitting an instrumentality of the State to run contrary to the State policies no State policy could be implemented and the progress of the State would be hampered. Nothing substantial has been found or submitted to take a view contrary to the findings arrived at by the learned single Judge to the effect that the policy does apply to the industry established by respondent No.1. The policy issued is squarely covered by a direction u/s 78A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It does not require any specific mention or a specific direction to the instrumentalities of the State to follow its policy. In ordinary course the instrumentalities of the State are expected to follow the policy of the State framed from time to time.

In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.