This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not allowing the benefit of 25% rebate on power tariff to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.108, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20-05-1996, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. I have heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited representing respondent Nos.3 to 6.

3. The petitioner purchased the properties of M/s.Aravind Chemical Industries situated at Jeedimetla, Rang Reddy District, and approached the respondents for release of HT service. The petitioner averred that originally, the vendor of the property i.e., M/s.Aravin, Chemical Industries was enjoying LT Power connection for lighting purpose and the said service connection was transferred in the name of the petitioner with effect from June, 1997. It is the further plea of the petitioner that for the purpose (commencing commercial production, it has applied for HT connection and that it started its commercial production with support of diesel generators and later got the HT service connection released by the respondents. The Government of Andhra Pradesh announced its new industrial policy called "Target 2000" under GO.Ms.No.108, date 20-05-1996. Under the said policy, the State Government has announced various incentives to all new industrial units al 25% rebate for a period of three years electrical charges from the date commencement of commercial production is one such incentive. The petitioner approached the Industries Department for issue of eligibility certificate as envisaged in the said policy. Accordingly, the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District, ha issued eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner vide EC.No.8252/83/97, dated 26-12-1997, wheirein it has certified that the petitioner is entitled to the power rebate for a period of three years with effect from 11-04-1997. The petitioner's request was however rejected by the functionaries of respondent No.3. The petitioner ha evidently approached respondent No.2 who, in turn, has addressed letter, date 08-04-2003, to respondent No.1 in the backdrop of rejection of the petitioner request by the functionaries of respondent No.3 and requested respondent No.1 to issue necessary orders for providing 25% power rebate for a period of three years at least from 15-07-1998, if not from 11-04-1997 terms of T.O.O.(Comml) No.36, dated 08-03-1999. When there was no response to the said letter, the petitioner approached respondent No.1, who, in turn, called report from respondent No.3. As petitioner has not succeeded in getting rebate in power tariff, it has filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Separate counter-affidavits have filed by respondent Nos.2 and 6.

5. In the counter-affidavit filed respondent No.2, it is inter alia stat originally, the petitioner-unit commenced production with ex Service Connection No.316, which transferred from M/s.Aravind Chemical Industries to the petitioner; that the erstwhile APSEB vide letter, dated 22-07-1997, informed that Connection No.316 was transferred name of the petitioner with effect from June 1997 and that later, HT supply was released to the petitioner on 15-07-1998 as dated 11-08-1998, of Deputy Electrical Engineer and that the petitioner-unit commenced commercial production on 11-04-1997. It is also stated that eligibility certificate was issued on 26-12-1997, but the AP TRANSCO, to which respondent No.3 succeeded, declined to extend 25% power rebate on the ground that industries with name change and title transfer are not eligible for such rebate. It is further stated that under G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20-05-1996, all eligible new industrial units are entitled for various incentives including 25% rebate in power bills for a period of three years from the date of commencement