BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PATNA ALUMINIUM UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1973 the Government of Bihar announced its industrial policy as contained in Resolution No. 16808 dated 29.9.73 of the Department of Industries & Technical Education granting different kinds of incentives and concessions to Small-scale Industrial units. One such incentive was in the form of confessional supply of electricals energy. Paragraph 6 of the Resolution contains the details of the incentive in that regard. The relevant part of the said Resolution which, in fact, is the basis of the claim of the writ petitioners, reads as follows: Confessional rates of electricity tariff

(2.) According to the writ petitioners, respondent herein, it was entitled to total exemption from AMG charges for a period of 5 years from 1.4.76 and the amended resolution dated 17.4.76 was not applicable. The Bihar State Electricity Board, however, during the past realised a sum of Rs. 2,04,445.25 paise under "threat and coercion" and had raised demand for subsequent period and also, in default of payment thereof, had disconnected the electric supply. The respondent, in the circumstances, filled a writ petition for quashing the ills and refund of the amount said to have illegally realised under threat and coercion and for immediate restoration of the supply of electrical energy.

(3.) According to the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter called, the Board), in terms of the decision of the of the State Government as contained in letter dated 18.3.76 of the Industrial Development Commissioner, the existing arrangement of exemption at source was to continue only upto 31.3.76. The industrial units was required to pay the amount to the Board and thereafter claim reimbursement from the State Government through the agency of the Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation (BISCICO in short) one of the financial institutions through which the different kinds of incentives are canalised. In other words, the incentive is now available in the form of reimbursement. The Board thus does not deny claim of the respondent. In fact, according to it, the question of incentive/requirement is entirely between the consumers and the government. According to the respondent, on the other hand, since the industrial policy resolution conferred complete exemption from payment, there was no question of its paying to the Board first and then recover the amount from the State Government by way of reimbursement.