16 September, 1995 for a period of 5 years, but the Division Bench of the High Court under its judgment dated 18 January, 2005 held that the crucial date in terms of the GO issued by the Government of Kerala dated 6 February, 1992 is the date of commencement of commercial production and the respondent (industrial unit) started its commercial production on 26 March, 1995 and accordingly while disposing of the petition filed at the instance of the respondent herein returned a finding that the date of commercial production in respect of the respondent (industrial unit) is 26 March, 1995 and the claim for concessional tariff for a period upto 16 September, 2000 based on the date of energisation came to be rejected. In the above circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for concessional tariff for a period up to 16.09.2000 cannot be granted.” It reveals from the record that after dismissal of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 18 January, 2005, a review application was filed by the respondents and it was prayed that instead of the date of commencement of commercial production, date of energisation has been considered by the Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) granting concession to other industrial units. In view of the liberty granted by the Division Bench of the High Court while disposing of the review application by order dated 8 March, 2007, representation was filed by the respondent (industrial unit) and that came to be rejected by the Board by a self-contained reasoned order dated 31 August, 2007. where the concession has been extended from the date of energisation to the unit rather than from the date of commercial production, finally upheld order of the learned Single Judge holding that the respondent(industrial unit) is entitled for the concession as being granted to M/s Patspin India Ltd.
After the writ appeal came to be dismissed, a review application was filed at the instance of the present appellants and at this stage, it was brought to the notice of the High Court that claim of the respondent (industrial unit) was based on the plea that other industrial unit (M/s Patspin India Ltd.) has been granted certain benefits from the date of energisation, but the order in the case of M/s Patspin India Ltd. Patspin India Limited was withdrawn from the date of energisation is reproduced hereunder:- “
O R D E R Based on the G.O., B.O & Certificate issued by the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation referred 1,2 & (3) above, sanction was accorded vide reference (5) by the Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer,
K.S.E.
Code
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/c-a-no-008470-008470-2022/
No 26/2662 is eligible for 5 years concessional tariff from the date of commercial production, i.e., from 18.01.94 to 17.01.1999. The order read as fifth paper above stands modified to the above extent.”
It is further brought to our notice that apart from the controversy which was raised by the respondent(industrial unit) claiming parity in respect of concessional tariff granted to M/s Patspin India Ltd., a further objection was raised that the respondent(industrial unit) is also entitled for extension of the period of application of pre-1992 tariff at least for the period where there was 50% or more power cut in terms of the Board’s Order but that has not been extended to the respondent (industrial unit) herein, the extension of the period of application pre-1992 tariff was from 26 March, 2000 to 26 October, 2000 so as to cover the period where there was 50% or more power cut, has been extended to the respondent (industrial unit) as per the Board’s order dated 18 October, 2000 (Ann.P-5). being withdrawn, there remain no factual foundation on the basis of which the parity by the respondent (industrial unit) could have been claimed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while supporting the finding returned by the Division Bench of the High Court under the judgment impugned submits that even taking note of the order of withdrawal dated 22 November, 2001, the respondent (industrial unit) was entitled for concessional tariff for 214 days to compensate the period when there was 50% or more power cut, in the manner as extended to M/s Patspin India Ltd., which is indicated in the order dated 22 November, 2001 relied upon by the Board. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in S.V.A.
is concerned, the date of energisation has been considered to be the touchstone for granting exemption from enhanced power tariff for a period of 5 years in terms of GO dated 6 February, 1992 but the very foundation on which the respondent (industrial unit) proceeded, stands nullified after passing of the order dated 22 November, 2001 withdrawing the benefit of exemption from enhanced power tariff from the date of energisation to industrial unit (M/s Patspin India Ltd.) remained unchallenged and this being the error apparent on the face of record, the finding which has been returned by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that withdrawal of exemption in the case of M/s What being prayed for is something which does not emerge/contemplate from the GO dated 6 February, 1992 and after the order has been withdrawn in the case of M/s
Patspin India Ltd. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Limited and Others (supra) on which the learned counsel for the respondent (industrial unit) has placed reliance, deal with the self- same issue for grant of certain benefits of exemption as assured by the Government of Kerala in terms of GO dated 21 May, 1990 followed with GO dated 6 February, 1992 and that being considered in the case of present respondent (industrial unit) of which reference has been made, indeed complied with by the Board by order dated 18 October, 2000.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Case Title: KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. Vs. RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (2022 INSC 1203)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008457-008458 / 2022
