M/S. A.P. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 14-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

< 
MIS. A.P. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LTD. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Electricity Supply Act, 1948-Notification granting benefit of a 
concessional power tariff to new units which start production between 1. 1. I 992 
and 3 I. I 2. I 996-Production not started by 31. I 2. I 996-High Court held that c 
appellant was not entitled to benefit of Notificatio~orrectness of -Held, 
Correct as appellant-unit had failed to comply with terms/conditions of 
scheme and in obtaining sanction for electrical connection within a 
·reasonable time- Doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable. 
Delay/latches in filing writ petition-Relief sought by placing reliance D 
on a Judgment passed in another case-Held, appellant approached the Court 
after a long delay, hence not entitled to obtain discretionary relief-Benefit of 
judgment not exten~ed automatically-While granting relief in a writ petition, 
High Court required to consider fact situation in each case including conduct 
.. 
of petitioner-Court to consider as to whether the writ petitioner chose to sit 
over the matter and then woke up after decision of this Court. 
E 
Interpretation of statutes-Exemption Notification-Held, generally, to 
he construed strictly, but once it is found that the entrepreneur fulfils the 
conditions laid down therein, liberal construction would be made. 
Doctrine of promissory estoppel-Beneficent scheme made by the State-
F 
Applicability of the doctrine-Held, applicable if entrepreneur had altered his 
position pursuant to or in furtherance of a promise made by the State to grant 
benefit. 
Pursuant to the Industrial Policy adopted in 1992, the State of Kerala G 
issued a Notification dated 6.2.1992 granting exemption from payment of 
enhanced power tariff to the new industrial units, which start production 
between 1.1.1992 and 31.12.1996. 
The said Industrial Policy was accepted by the Electricity Board. 
1057 
H 
k 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A The case of appellant-Victory Paper and Boards India is that pursuant to 
or in furtherance of the representation made by the State of Kerala and/ 
or the respondent-Board they altered their position by investing a huge 
amount by setting up factories/new units. The State at the district level 
constituted a 'Green Channel Clearance Committee' (GCC). The 
B appellant had applied for grant of electric power allocation to the extent 
of 2500 KV A. It obtained loan on 19; 1.1995. As the application of the 
appellant had not allegedly been processed, GCC issued several reminders 
to the Board. On or about 17.11.1995, Appellant informed the Board that 
the project was at an advanced stage. It was recorded that despite 
recommendations by GCC, sanction for grant of electrical connection had 
C not been issued. It, allegedly, imported machinery from abroad, which fact 
was intimated to the Board by a letter dated 24th June, 1996. The response 
of the Board thereto is to be found in the letter dated 11.2.1997, whereby 
sanction for power allocation was sought for by the Deputy Chief Engineer 
from the Chief Engineer of the Board. Having regard to the fact that there 
D was no adequate transformer capacity, the allocation could not be granted, 
as was informed to the appellant by the Board in terms of its letter dated 
21.4.1997. Electrical energy was allocated for six months on trial-run basis 
on 24.12.1997 and a final sa.nction was granted on 21.12.1998. Appellant 
started commercial production on 10.3.1999. It was denied the benefit of 
the said incentive scheme dated 6.2.1992. Appellant filed writ petition, 
E which was dismissed. 
In case of appellant-A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd., its writ petition 
was permitted to be withdrawn by the High. Court. A review application 
filed by the said appellant was also dismissed. An application for grant 
of electrical connection was filed by it in November, 1995 and actual 
F commercial production started in or about October, 1998. It was also 
denied the benefit of exemption Notification. Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Generally, an exemption notification is to be construed 
G strictly, but once it is found that the entrepreneur fulfils the conditions 
laid down therein, liberal construction would be made. A question as to 
whether, in a given situation, an entrepreneur was entitled to the benefit 
under an exemption notification or not,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.