( 1 ) THIS court initially dismissed the writ petition on 24-1-2003 following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in m/s. Rayalaseema Roller Flour Mills v. A. P. S. E. B. , Hyderabad and also on the decision of the Apex Court in S. L. P. No. 13004/1989.

( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the learned counsel for the petitioner represented that this court while dismissing the writ petition did not take into consideration the law laid down by the apex Court with regard to situation that arose due to the earlier interim orders of this court. He stated this court granted interim directions in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the said direction, the petitioner was extended the subsidy during the pendency of the writ petition and in view of the dismissal of the writ petition though the petitioner repaid the subsidy availed by him, the respondents are demanding to pay the surcharge on that amount, treating as if the petitioner has paid the amount belatedly. He stated that the stay been not granted, the petition would have paid the amount within the prescribed period and he would not have been penalized with surcharge. In support of his contention, he also relied on judgments of the Apex Court.

( 3 ) IN view of the above submission, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption for being mentioned and taken up for rehearing and disposal. Accordingly the matter is reheard and the order dated 24-1-2003 is hereby recalled.

( 4 ) HEARD Sri. C. Kodandaram counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Vinoba Devi, standing Counsel for the respondents.

( 5 ) THIS writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents-A. P. State electricity Board (now formed as A. P. Transmission Corporation. Hence, herein after referred to as the Corporation ) in demanding additional charges for belated payment, amounting to Rs. 6,08,490. 00 from the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

( 6 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner -unit is a Roller Flour Mill. The government in order to encourage the establishment of industries in the State, announced several incentives through g. O. Ms. No. 224 Industries and Commerce department dated 9-3-1976. Subsequently the Corporation adapted the said G. O. and issued B. P. Ms. No. 691 (Commercial) dated 10-8-1976. As per these proceedings, the industries were entitled for 25 per cent rebate on consumption charges for a period of five years. But in the said G. O. , the government have excluded certain industries which do not need much investment. The flourmills are among those, which were excluded by the Government for extension of incentives. The respondent- corporation taking the view that roller flour mills also fall in the category of flour mills , denied the benefit under B. P. Ms. No. 691 to the petitioner-unit. Aggrieved by this denial, a batch of writ petitions were filed before this court. It is stated that this court while disposing of the said batch of writ petitions directed the Government to appoint a committee to decide whether roller flour mills are not entitled for the benefit under b. P. Ms. No. 691. It appears that accordingly a committee was constituted and it submitted its report. As per the report of the committee dated 6-8-1979, the roller flour mills are different from that of flour mill and accordingly the committee recommended for the extension of the benefit of 25 per cent rebate on electric consumption charges for the roller flour mills. However, the government refused to accept the recommendations of the committee. Thereupon W. P. No. 10337/1985 and batch were filed seeking a direction to Government and the Board to extend 25 per cent rebates as per the committee recommendations dated 6-8-1979. This court disposed of the said batch of writ petitions on 3-10-1988 and directed the Government to take a decision on the recommendations of the committee and further ordered that the concession which was extended by way of interim orders w