Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA
M/s. Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. & Others
Versus
State of U.P. & Others
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.537 of 2000
Decided on : 20-01-2011
B)
Key Points: - The petitioners sought to quash a notification denying Hill Development Rebate (33.33%) and restore the rebate; court analyzes withdrawal/modification of rebates granted under statutory powers (!) (!) (!) . - The case discusses promissory estoppel in the context of government notifications granting rebates and whether such estoppel applies when statutes grant or withdraw benefits (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment considers whether judicial review under Article 32 is maintainable for policy decisions on subsidies/tariffs and whether the government can extend, revise, or withdraw concessions in public interest (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It analyzes the transition from state power under old acts to regulatory commissions under new acts and the corresponding authority to grant or withdraw rebates (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment
J.M. Panchal, J.
By filing this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the ten petitioners which are Private Limited Companies have prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring notification No. 1208/HC/UPPCL-V-1974/1204/2000 dated 07.08.2000 issued by the UP Power Corporation Limited, which was formerly known as U.P. State Electricity Board as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution in so far as it denies the petitioners, the Hill Development Rebate of 33.33% on the total amount of electricity bills issued by the respondents for the remaining unexpired period of five years from the date of commencement of supply of electricity to the industrial units of the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction commanding the respondents to restore/give Hill Development Rebate of 33.33% to the industrial units of the petitioners on the total amount of the electricity bills for the remaining unexpired period of five years.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition are as under:-
The petitioners are industrial units carrying on business of manufacturing iron rods, ingots, strips in furnaces/re-rolling mills in hill are known as Kotdwar, State of Uttar Pradesh, now State of Uttarakhand. The industrial units of the petitioners were connected with power loads in the year 1996-97 by U.P. State Electricity Board which is now known as U.P. Power Corporation Limited. The claim made by the petitioners is that from the year 1986, the State Government, in order to develop hill areas and particularly Zero Industrial Zones of hill areas as well as for inducing, encouraging and alluring new entrepreneurs declared various exhaustive industrial policies with the consent of UP State Electricity Board, Sales Tax Department and Industrial Department granting various incentives including rebate of 33.33% on total amount of electricity bills to industrial units to be established in hill areas of UP. The petitioners have averred that a new industrial policy dated April 30, 1990 was declared by the State Government assuring grant of 33.33% rebate on total amount of electricity bills to new entrepreneurs for a period of five years. The case of the petitioners is that the Government of UP, pursuant to the aforesaid policy issued an order dated 16-10-1990 to UPSEB to implement all the instructions contained in the said industrial policy. The said policy, according to the petitioners was to remain in operation till March 31, 1995. The record shows that the UPSEB by Notification dated June 28, 1996 modified the earlier notifications and extended the Hill Development Rebate which was to expire on March 31, 1995 for a further period of next five years to be made available to the new industrial units which would be set up till 31-3-1997. The petitioners have claimed that the five years period for which the petitioners were entitled to the Hill Development Rebate of 33.33% on the total amount of electricity bills was to be over in the year 2001-02. What is asserted by the petitioners is that in view of the promises, assurances and guarantees given by the Government of UP through various industrial policies declared from time to time and accepted, operated as well as implemented by UPSEB through different gazette notifications, the industrial units of the petitioners were established in Kotdwar, District Pauri in the year 1996-97. According to the petitioners on January 3, 1997 the Respondent No.2 Corporation, brought out its electricity tariff to be levied on the consumers and it was inter-alia stipulated that the promises made in the industrial policy declared by the UP Government on April 30, 1990 and gazette notification dated June 28, 1996 would continue to be available to the new entrepreneurs as before. The petitioners have mentione
Shrijee Sales Corpn. V. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 398.
Association of Industrial Electricity Users vs. State of U.P. and others (2002) 3 SCC 711
West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission vs. CESC (2002) 8 SCC 715
BSES vs. Tata power Company Limited (2004) 1 SCC 195
State of Rajasthan and Another vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and Another (2004) 7SCC 673
Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 274
Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 31
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.