SUNRISE ELECTROMELT LTD Vs. STATE OF GOA THROUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the above Review Petitions are taken up together as they seek review of the common Judgment passed by this Court on 18.07.2011 on the same grounds.

(2.) We have heard Shri Nitin Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Shri S. S. Kantak, learned Advocate General, appearing for the Respondents.

(3.) Shri Nitin Sardessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, has sought the review of the impugned Judgment dated 08.07.2011 on two counts. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the rights of the Applicants have crystallized upon making the application for power while a Notification dated 30.09.1991 was in force and hence irrespective of when the power was actually supplied, the Applicants would be entitled to the rebate at the 1988 rates. It is further his contention that in the reply filed by the Respondents in the Writ Petition, it was specifically contended by the Respondents that the rebate was granted to the Applicants not under the Notification dated 30.09.1991 but under the Notification dated 01.08.1996 as per the prevailing rates and that the Notification of the year 1996 has been declared illegal. It is further his contention that this Court had committed a mistake/error apparent on the face of record which is established on the basis of a new document which is very important and has direct bearing to the matter in controversy. The learned Counsel further submitted that in case the averments in the said letter were considered, this Court would have come to the conclusion that the rights of the Applicants were governed by the Notification of 1991 and not of the Notification of 1996 and, as such, the Applicants were entitled for the rebate as contemplated therein. The learned Counsel further submitted that before filing the Writ Petition, the Applicants had made a thorough search of the documents in their possession but the Applicants had not found the letter in its record despite exercise of diligence. The learned Counsel further submitted that in case the letter dated 09.04.1999 was considered, this Court would have come to the conclusion that the Applicants are entitled for the rebate as claimed by them as per the 1991 Notification. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there is another error in the impugned Judgment to the effect that the reference to the reliance by the learned Counsel in paragraph 63 of the Judgment passed by this Court on 21.01.1999, in Writ Petition No. 262/1998, reported in 1999 (1) G.L.T. 218, in the case of G. R. Ispat Ltd., Vs. Chief Electrical Engineer & Ors., is to be read as paragraph 64 of the said Judgment. The learned Counsel, as such submitted, that the impugned Judgment as such deserves to be reviewed.