Jaiswal, J. -- 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the notification dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure P-4), issued under section 3B of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949, on the ground that, it was opposed to the principles of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as the same is discriminatory as it forms a class amongst class, therefore, the said notification was bad in law and is ultra vires to the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also sought the quashment of orders dated 9.1.2013 and 8.5.2013, passed by the respondent No.3 and prayed for refund of the extra electricity duty amount of of Rs.67,40,606/-, including the surcharge levied to the petitioner together with the interest.

2. The petitioner is a private limited company, owing what is described as a spinning mill at Pithampur, District Dhar. The petitioner claims to be manufacturing ‘man made fabrics’ in this mill and to work a factory license has been issued by the Government of M.P vide Annexure P-3, for manufacturing process of spinning of all types of yarns from man made fibers, natural fiber, cotton fiber and made up. The petitioner unit is chargeable to electricity duty.

3. The petitioner who is given the benefit and an amount of Rs.67,40,606/- be ordered to be adjusted for the excess payment made for a period from 7.1.2009 to 31.7.2011. On verification, it was found that the petitioner unit was not in fact a textile unit and respondent passed the order dated 6.12.2012 and directed to pay the amount of Rs.67,40,606/- in the Government treasury for the period 7.1.2009 to 31.7.2011.

4. By order dated 9.1.2013, the respondent No.3 Chief Engineer and the Chief Electrical Inspector of Government of M.P. passed an order directing for depositing the amount of Rs.67,40,606/-. He challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.3243/2013, on the ground that the same was arbitrary and was passed without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus, was violative of principle of natural justice. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 3.3.2014, set aside the same and granted the opportunity to the respondent to pass an appropriate order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 by order dated 8.5.2014, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner representative, affirmed the action by holding that the notification dated 17.5.1995, exemption was granted for certain items, but the same is not extendable to the spinning unit and held that the petitioner is liable for electricity duty as provided in the Schedule by virtue of notification dated 17.5.1995.

5. M.P. Electricity Duty Act is an Act to provide for the levy of a duty on sale or consumption of electrical energy. The respondent No.1 exercising the powers vested in section 3 of the Act and the power of exemption as contained under section 3B of the Act notified the M.P. Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1995, inter alia amending the rate of duty as contained in the table below. By way of notification under section 3B, the respondent State while extending the exemption fixed the rate of duty for textile units excluding spinning mills at 5% per unit and other industries as 8%. The petitioner’s unit is of spinning unit and not a textile unit. It is a separate unit and is not covered under the term of textile unit as is provided in the schedule of the notification dated 17.5.1995. Section 3(B) of M.P. Electricity Duty (Amendment) Act, 1995 reads as under:

“Section 3B. Power to exempt. -- Where the State Government is of opinion that, --

(i) in order to encourage the establishment of any particular industry or class of industries in the State; or

(ii) having regard to the particular circumstances of any industry or class of industries; or

(iii) in or