BINANI ZINC LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.9565/1996 stands challenged before us in this appeal by the petitioner, M/s Binani Zinc Limited, a Company established in the year 1966.

(2.) Availability of cheap power and uninterrupted supply is an essential precondition for rapid industrialization. And industrialization is an essential pre-requisite for economic growth of any State. This is a classic case of how the successive dispensations of governance, in this State; going by the sobriquet of "Gods Own Country", have turned the industrial climate of the State to one worse than that of any imaginable purgatory. The State extends promises of power supply, both uninterrupted and at concessional rates, to lure industrialists and entrepreneurs to set up new and expand, diversify or modernize the old, industrial establishments. When that is done and the period of concession is over the entire State machinery is unleashed on these establishments, often with an uncalled for vengeance, to take back the concessions with levy of interest and penalty, driving the industries to abrupt closure. Allegations are made, as in this case, of the terms and conditions of the concessional scheme having been not complied with, raising serious questions on the efficiency of those entities including the K.S.E.Board, all under the Government control tasked with monitoring the grant of these concessions and its continuance.

(3.) The appellant-Company had carried out modernization and technology up-gradation in accordance with Exhibit P1 notification and the eligibility having been certified by the appropriate authority the concessional tariff was granted by the respondent-KSEB. Subsequently the Companies eligibility, except for a reservation made of a smelter furnace, was affirmed by the General Manager, District Industries Centre (GM,DIC). Even then cancellation of the entire concession granted was attempted after the period of concession, which was challenged before this Court. A re-consideration was ordered which resulted again in cancellation. The subsequent order was challenged in the instant writ petition, which was dismissed with a limited remand on quantification. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner-Company is in appeal before us. We heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Joseph Kodianthara appearing for the appellant and learned Senior Counsel Sri.Raju Joseph appearing for the KSEB.