(1.) The above appeals have been filed against the common order of the learned single Judge dated 8-12-1989 made in W.P.Nos. 12493 and 12494 of 1984 whereunder the learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed for the issue of writs of declaration declaring that the respondents are authorised to levy and collect from the appellant-Company electricity charge under the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates on Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1979) only on the basis of the assurance given by the first respondent in the writ petitions in their communication No. 138115/U2/75-9 dated 29-6-1976 and not on the basis of the Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 861 P.W. (Electricity) dated 30-4-1982 and consequently direct the respondents in both the petitions to refund to the appellants the amounts collected in excess thereof from May 1982.
(2.) W.A. No. 415 of 1990 has been filed against W.P. No, 12493 of 1984 by the Company and W.A. No. 414 of 1990 was filed against W. P. No.12494 of 1984 by the share- holder of the said Company both raising common and indentical issues praying for one and the same relief. The appellant, a public Limited Company, is carrying on business in the manufacture/sale of textiles, fertilizer and basic chemicals. The appellant-Company made an application on 18-9-1972 under the Industries (D and R) Act, 1951 to the Government of India and obtained a licence of setting up a new Unit for the manufacture of caustic soda for a capacity of 33000 tonnes per annum on 20-11-1973. On 24-1-1974 the appellant Company addressed the Government requesting for the fixation of "a special power tariff" for the project instead of the normal tariff charged for other industries which are not power intensive. The appellant-Company emphasised about the prospect of large scale consumption of power which is a major raw material for the industry and the possible benefits that the project may bring to the State in terms of easy availability of the basic chemical as well as bye-products.
(3.) On 18-12-1974, the first responder wrote to the appellant-Company of its decision to supply power to the appellant-Company generally in respect of their unit "on the same terms and conditions as for other caustic soda units, subject to the policies of the Government and Electricity Board, as may be decided from time to time". At that point of time, the ruling tariff rates chargeable an conditions of supply were in terms of G.O. Ms No. 362, P.W. (Elec.) dated 11-3-1975 which was introduced by way of amendment to the then existing order for the levy of general tariffs and conditions of supply of electricity energy by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board which in turn was published on 9-10-1974, In the communication dated 19-3-1975 the first respondent also informed the appellant Company of the rates of supply per KVA and of the right of revision by Government at any time and that it will continue to be subject to surcharges as may be in force from time to time and other State levies, present or future. The appellant-Company was also informed therein that besides the rates referred to in the said communication, the appellant will also be subject to the metropolitan surcharge of 2 paise per unit and the surcharge of 50%. The appellant-Company on 16-4-1975 wrote to the Government requesting for the fixation of the same rates to the appellant-Company as are chargeable to the other caustic soda units in the State without the metropolitan levy and the surcharge on the same. This was followed up by another letter dated 23-4-1975 with a request to waive the metropolitan levy. A similar request emanated from the appellant-Company on 2-6-1975, 8-7-1975 and 7-7-1975. Once again on 23-12-1975, the appellant-Company made representations to the Government requesting to consider the issue of waiver of the metropolitan levy. It was stated therein that substantial progress of the project has been made and the appellant-Company wished to commence civil works .... in the course of next couple of months. Once again, on 14-l-1976, further representations were made raising a legal issue about the non-applicability of the metropolitan levy to them and at the same time expressing a hope that the Government will not impose the metropolitan levy for the appellant Company's project and impressing upon the Government of the progress already made with regard to the implementation of the project.