ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 4th respondent in his impugned demand notice dated 09.03.2018 bearing No.Lr.No.SE/UEDC/UDT/DFC/AO/R/AAO/HT/AS/F.TFconcession204/

2018, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without the authority of law and against the very spirit of the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.05.2008 and consequently direct the respondents to grant tariff concession to the petitioner by following the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 16.05.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.3940 of 2008 and permit the petitioner to release the Bank Guarantees executed in favour of the respondents with respect to the tariff concession amount.

2. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition and the issue in W.P.No.2860 of 2018 dated 16.11.2021 are one and the same. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this matter also may be disposed of on the very same lines. The petitioner expressed their readiness on 13.01.1997 and therefore, he submits that the issue in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the issue in W.P.No.2860 of

2018.

3. It is relevant to extract Paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.2860 of 2018 dated 16.11.2021, reads as under:

“10. For determining the eligibility of the petitioner, the word "set up" indicated in the Government Order requires to be interpreted. The word "set up" has to be liberally and harmoniously interpreted in the best interest of the consumers. This Court carefully perused the pleadings made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The petitioner set up an industry, i.e., a Paper Mill with a capital investment of around Rs.23.81 Crores and made an application 09.10.1995 for a maximum demand of 3500 KVA of supply of electrical energy pet under the category of "High Tension". The said application was kept pending for more than 10 months without assigning any reason by the respondents. Later, vide communication dated 19.08.1996, the 3rd respondent sanctioned the demand of 3500 KVA and pursuant to the same, the petitioner also paid EMD of Rs.10,50,000/- on 11.09.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner vide communication dated 18.09.1996, expressed its readiness to avail power after completion of civil works and having equipments installed at the site. While so, there was no response from the respondents despite the petitioner approaching them periodically and despite expressing its readiness to avail power. It is pertinent to note that the respondents had kept silent without taking any efforts to process the request of the petitioner, which expressed its readiness as early as on 18.09.1996. But only in the year

1997, i.e. after a lapse of 11 months, the respondents sent a communication dated 01.09.1997, requesting the petitioner to pay Development and Service Connection Charges for the purpose of providing service connection. Immediately, the petitioner also paid the said amount on 03.09.1997. Later, the petitioner obtained CEIG certificate and finally, the respondents provided service connection on 31.10.1998. Had the respondents responded in time well before the cut off date, the petitioner would have certainly come under the zone of consideration for availing tariff concession. But due to the delay on the part of the respondents in providing the power supply, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to contend that the petitioner is not eligible to avail the tariff concession. In such event, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the inaction on the part of the respondents in effecting electricity supply before the cut off date. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner did not commence commercial production before the cut off date and thereby, they are not eligible for tariff concession cannot be countenanced. It has to be seen whether the petitioner did not commence production owing to