RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual matrix, leading to the filing of these petitions in the second round, could, in briefly, be set out as follows:- THE Government of Maharashtra announced its Industrial Policy sometimes in early 1993 and proposed not to charge electricity duty on the power generated by the captive power plants and its utilization. Clause 5.3.3.1 of the said policy reads as under:- "5.3.3.1 On the power front, the State has always accorded a very high priority to this sector. Nearly one fourth of its plan outlay is earmarked for this purpose. Today, our installed capacity is 9,300 mega watts. In the next 5 years, we propose to add 5,500 mega watts to this capacity. Maharashtra was the first State in which private sector participation has been permitted in power projects. We have now been able to seek participation of an international power company which is planning to set up a large power plant based on liquefied natural gas in Ratnagiri at a total investment of Rs.8,000 crore. We will also welcome captive generation of power by any unit so as to augment the overall power availablity in the State. To encourage such captive power generation, it is proposed not to charge electricity duty to the extent of such captive power generation and its utilization."

(2.) IN keeping with the INdustrial Policy so announced, the State Government issued a notification dated 22/6/1993 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5A of the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 ("the Act" for short) and exempted from July 1993 the consumption of energy in respect of any industrial purpose in the whole of the State of Maharashtra from payment of the whole of the electricity duty payable under Part F of the schedule to the said Act subject to the following conditions, namely,

(3.) THE relief prayed for in this group of petitions is on the lines of the relief granted by us by our common judgment dated 5/10/2009. However, some additional grounds, in addition to the grounds raised in Writ Petition Nos. 6414/2000, 495/01 and 5207/01 have been set out in these petitions and, therefore, this separate judgment to deal with those additional grounds, which ought to be treated as an extension of our common judgment dated 5/10/2009.