Andhra
Steel Corporation Ltd. Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors [1991] INSC 126 (2 May 1991)
Ojha, N.D. (J) Ojha, N.D. (J) Venkatachalliah, M.N. (J) Verma,
Jagdish Saran (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1456 1991 SCR (2) 624 1991 SCC (3) 263 JT 1991 (2) 581 1991 SCALE
(1)864
ACT:
Electricity
Supply Act, 1948: Sections 48 and 78-A-- Mini steel plants--Electricity
supply--State Government fixing concessional tariff and directing the
Electricity Board to supply electricity at such rates--Whether amounts to
granting of immunity to the plants from payment of minimum charges--Concessional
tariff and minimum supply-- Imposition of conditions by Electricity
Board--Validity of.
Administrative
Law: Establishment of mini steel plants--Supply of electricity at concessional
tariff-- Applicability of principles of natural justice, doctrine of promissory
estoppel and doctrine of of legitimate expectation.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellants owning mini steel plants have been getting supply of electricity
from the Respondent-Board. The Board revised its terms and conditions for
supply of electricity, and concessional tariff of 11 paise per unit for 3 years
from 1.11.1977 was applied to five steel plants. This tariff was subsequently
enhanced to 12.5 paise per unit.
However,
the concessional tariff was not extended to one of the appellants viz. M/s.
Andhra Steel Corporation since a Writ Petition had been filed by it claiming
that the agreement entered into with the Respondent-Board for availing high
tension electric supply was no longer in force. In respect of the other steel
plants, the Bard extended the concessional tariff subject to escalations and
other terms and conditions and fixed a certain minimum consumption. However,
the tariff was revised to 16 paise without reference to the maximum demand
charges from 1.3.1978. In reply to a clarification sought by the
Respondent-Board, the State Government clarified that the Government order did
not preclude the Board from applying the normal terms and conditions of supply
and prescribing the monthly minimum charges and the working out of the
escalated rate from time to time. Subsequently the State Government withdrew
the concessional tariff. The State Government made a further clarification that
its intention was to allow the concessional tariff without limiting the
concession by imposition of minimum- 625 consumption charges till the end of
March, 1979.
Aggreived
by the withdrawal of the concessional tariff, the mini steel plants filed Writ
Petitions before the High Court contending that it was not open to the
Electricity Board to have levied minimum charges and it was bound to supply
electricity to them at the concessional tariff fixed by the State Government.
It was also contended that State Government's subsequent clarification should
prevail over the earlier one. Violation of principales of natural justice,
doctrine of promissory estoppel and right based on doctrine of legitimate
expectation were also contended.
It was
further contended that the directions were issued under section 78A of the
Electricity Supply Act and hence they were of a compulsory nature and binding
on the Board.
The
Andhra Steel Corporation contended that while applying the concessional tariff
to other mini steel plants, the Electricity Board was not justified in refusing
the same to it thereby singling it out and hence its action was discriminatory
and male fide.
The
High Court rejected the various contentions and dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Aggrieved
by the dismissal of their Writ Petitions, the mini steel plants filed appeal
before this Court, raising the same contentions as were advanced before the
High Court.
Dismissing
the appeals, this Court,
HELD:
1. In granting concessional tariff obviously it does not appear to be the
purpose to compel the Electricity Board to maintain the supply of the
contracted load of electricity to the appellants by incurring loses. The only
purpose in directing supply of energy at concessional rates was to reduce the
charges of actual energy consumed by the appellants and this purpose could not
be frustrated till the Electricity Board complied with the direction of
supplying electricity to them at the concessional rate. Though the order dated
16.1.80 in substance amounts to a clarification of the earlier order of
clarification dated 5th
December,1978, it
states nothing as to why the clarification contained in the order dated 5th December, 1978 in categorical terms did not
express the real intention of the State Government in issuing the earlier
Government orders granting concessional tariff. The orders- 626 granting concessional
tariff, did not either expressly or by necessary implication grant immunity to
the mini steel plants from their obligation to pay minimum charges and this
having been categorically stated by the State Government in its clarificatory
order dated 5th December, 1978 there was apparently no basis for issuing the
second clarificatory order dated 16th January, 1980. It was issued on some
representation made by the mini steel plants at a point of time when Writ
Petition on their behalf had already been filed in the High Court and matter
was sub-judice. In such a situation, apart from the propriety of issuing the
second clarificatory order on 16th January, 1980 it is obvious that what was
contained in this order is analogous to an averment made by the State
Government in reply to the Writ Petitions filed on behalf of the appellants and
it has no bearing in finding out the true import of the orders of the State
Government granting concessional tariff. [633C-D;636A-E] Amalgamated
Electricity Co. v. Jalgaon Borough Municipality, [1975] 2 SCC 508 and Bihar State
Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries, [1990] 1 SCC 731, referred to.
2. By
the Government Orders dated 2nd November, 1977 and 26th
November, 1977 concession
was granted to the appellants. This is manifest from the government Orders
themselves which expressly used the expression "concessional power
tariff" or "concessional tariff". At no stage, the appellants
disputed that what was extended to them by the said Government Order was by way
of concession. In view of the settled law. Neither of the two orders viz.,
order dated 5.12.78 and 12.3.79 can be said to be illegal on the ground that
they were passed in violation of principles of natural justice.[633F-H] Shri Bakul
Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, [1987] 1 SCC 31; relied on.
3.
With regard to the plea of promissory estoppel, it is not the case of the
appellants that they established their mini plants after the grant of concessional
Tariff by the said two Government Orders and but for the grant of such concessional
tariff they would not have established their mini steel plants. The necessary
facts so as to sustain the plea of promissory estoppel are not pleaded or
established by the appellants. [635B-D]
4.
There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of doctrine of legitimate
expectation on the basis of which the appellants could be held entitled to any
relief.[635G] 627
5. On
the facts of the present appeals it is not necessary to go into the question
whether the power of fixing tariff under section 49 of the Electricity Supply
Act could be regulated by a direction under section 78A thereof.
The
electricity Board proceded to implement the directions with regard to fixation
of concessional tariff issued by the State Government and resolved to realise
electricity charges from the appellants only at the concessional tariff of 12.2
p. as fixed in the Government Order dated 26th November, 1977. It, however, took the further view
that the directions issued by the Government did not have any bearing on the
obligation of the appellants to pay minimum charges which they were bound to
pay under the agreements executed by them even though such minimum charges were
to be calculated at the rate of 12.2 p. per unit subject to escalation as
indicated in the Government Orders in question. Such minimum charges were
payable even if no electricity was consumed by the appellants for any reason
whatsoever. [631B-D]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1454-63 & 1642-45 of 1981.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1981 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 3720 of 1979.
G. Ramaswamy,
M.S Ganesh, S. Murlidhar, Sanjeev Ahuja and B. Parthasarthy for the Appellants.
C. Sitaramaiya,
T.V.S.N. Chari and Mrs. B. Sunita Rao for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. These appeal are directed
against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 10th April, 1981 rendered in a batch of writ
petitions, reported in M/s. Poddar Projects Ltd. (Multi Steels) v. A.P.S.E.
Board, AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 189. For the sake of convenience, these appeals
are being decided by a common judgment. In order to appreciate the respective
submissions made by learned counsel for the parties necessary facts may be
stated in brief.
The
appellants are some of the mini steel plants of Andhra Pradesh. Revised terms
and conditions of electricity supply were notified by the Andhra Pradesh State
Electricity Board (for short the Electricity Board) in B.P. Ms. No.690 (Coml.)
on 17.9.75 to be effec- 628 tive from 20 October, 1975, Subsequently, G.O. Ms.
No. 832 dated 2nd November, 1977 was issued by the State Government whereby concessional
tariff of 0.11 p. per unit for the period of three years commencing from 1st
November, 1977 and endings with 31st October, 1980 was applied in respect of
the following five consumers:
1.
Andhra Pradesh State Corporation Limited
2. Poddar
Projects Limited
3.
A.K. Corporation Limited
4.
Andhra Steels, Vishakapatnam
5.
A.K. Corporation, Vishakapatnam.
This concessional
tariff was subsequently enhanced to
12.5
p. by the State Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 876 dated 26th November, 1977. The concessional tariff referred
to above, however, was not extended to M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation by the
Electricity Board by passing a resolution in its meeting held on 26th November,
1977 inasmuch as the Andhra Steel Corporation had already filed a writ petition
inter alia claiming that the agreement which it had entered into with the
Electricity Board for availing high tension electric supply was no longer in
force. In respect of the remaining four steel plants referred to above the
Electricity Board extended the concessional tariff of 12.2 p. subject to
escalations and other terms and conditions of supply and fixed minimum
consumption of 403.325 units/KVA.
This
was done by issuing B.P. Ms. No. 78 dated 20th January, 1978. These four mini
steel plants were, however, subsequently directed by the Electricity Board vide
B.P. Ms. No. 436/Coml. dated 3rd May, 1978
to be charged at a tariff rate of 16 p. per unit instead of 12.2 p. without
reference to the maximum demand charges from 1st March, 1978. The Electricity Board also sought clarification from the
State Government vide its letter No. DE (Coml.) 1205-1/76-32 dated 27 November,
1978 with regard to fixation of minimum consumption of 403.325 units/KVA and
fixation of concessional tariff at 0.16 p. per unit in view of the new levy of
central excise duty and in view of the increased cost of generation. The State
Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 697 dated 5th December, 1978 issued a
clarification that the aforesaid G.O. Ms.Nos. 832 and 876 did not preclude the
Electricity Board from applying the normal terms and conditions of supply and
prescribing the monthly minimum charges and the working out of the escalated
rate from time of time. Subsequently the State Government vide G.O. Ms. No. 146
dated 12th March, 1979 withdrew the concessional tariff contemplated by G.O.
Ms. Nos. 832 and 876 referred to above. This was done on the representation of
the Electricity Board which in its turn through its B.P. Ms. No. 830 dated 2nd
April, 1979 cancelled B.P.Ms. Nos. 78 and 436 with effect from 12th March,
1979. The State Government 629 subsequently also issued G.O. Ms. No. 10 dated
16th January., 1980 whereby it was clarified that its intention in issuing the
earlier G.O. Ms. No. 697 dated 5th December, 1978 was to allow the concessional
tariff rate notified in G.O. Ms. no 876 without limiting the concession by
imposition of minimum consumption charges till the end of March, 1979. The
Electricity Board felt aggreived by this G.O. and requested the Government to
cancel it for the reasons set out in its letter dated 28th January, 1980.
One of
the grievances of the Andhra Steel Corporation in its writ petition before the
High Court was that the Electricity Board while applying the concessional
tariff to the other mini steel plants was not justified in refusing the said
concession to it merely because it had filed a writ petition. The action of the
Electricity Board is singling it out was, according to the Andhra Steel
Corporation, discriminatory and mala fide. This plea has been reiterated before
us also and is confined to the appeal preferred by the Andhra Steel
Corporation.
The
pleas common to all the appellants which were raise before the High Court as
also before us may now be enumerated. It has been asserted that in view of the
direction issued by the State Government fixing concessional tariff for the
appellants it was not open to the Electricity Board to have levied minimum
charges and it was bound to supply electricity to the appellants on the concessional
tariff alone as fixed by the state Government. As regards the order of the
State Government dated 5th December, 1978 which clarified that its earlier
orders fixing concessional tariff did not preclude the Electricity Board from
levying inter alia minimum charges it has been asserted that the said order is
illegal. In the alternative, it is asserted that if clarificatory orders could
be issued by the State Government with regard to its orders fixing concessional
tariff the subsequent clarification made by order dated 16th January, 1980 had
to prevail over the earlier clarification dated 5th December, 1978.
The
order of the State Government dated 12th March, 1979 withdrawing the concessional
tariff with effect from that date had also been assailed on the ground that it
was passed on the representation of the Electricity Board without giving any
opportunity to the appellants to show cause against the said representation and
consequently the said order was in violation of principles of natural justice.
Pleas of promissory estoppel and right based on the doctrine of legitimate
expectation have also been raised.
630 As
regards the submission made on behalf of the Andhra Steel Corporation about
singling it out in the matter of grant of concessional tariff on the basis of
the order issued by the State Government for the period ending 12th March, 1979
Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the Electricity Board has very fairly
stated that the Electricity Board would extend to the Andhra Steel Corporation
also the same benefit which was extended to the other four mini steel plants in
the matter of grant of concessional tariff for the said period ending 12th
March, 1979. In this view of the matter it is not now necessary to deal with
this plea.
As
regard the plea that in view of the direction issued by the State Government
fixing concessional tariff for the appellants it was not open to the
Electricity Board to have levied minimum charges as it was bound to supply
electricity to the appellants on the concessional tariff alone as fixed by the
State Government it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
not only it was specifically stated in the G.O. dated 26th November, 1977 that
the directions contend there were issued under section 78A of the Act, it was
accepted even by the Electricity Board to be a direction under Section 78A of
the Act as is apparent from its proceedings dated 20th January, 1978. According
to learned counsel for the appellants a direction issued under Section 78A of
the Act was of a compulsive nature and was binding on the Electricity Board.
The only dispute which the Electricity Board could raise was as envisaged and
in the manner provided by Sections 78A(2) of the Act about the direction being
a matter of policy. The Electricity Board according to learned counsel not
having taken raucous to the procedure contained in Section 78A(2) of the Act
was precluded from asserting before the High Court that the Government orders
granting concessional tariff to the appellants did not fall within the purview
of Section 78A of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the
Electricity Board on the other hand has been that a direction under Section 78A
of the Act can be only with regard to a matter of policy vis-a-vis the
consumers generally or of a particular class or category as distinguished from
individual consumers and even such a direction does not have a binding force
and is calculated only to guide the Electricity Board in the discharge of its
statutory functions. Learned counsel for the parties were at variance even on
the question as to whether the power of fixing tariff under Section 49 of the
Act could be regulated by a direction under Section 78A thereof. In support of
the submission that a direction issued by the Government is compulsive in
nature learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the State of Andhra Pradesh drew or attention to- 631 certain
decisions and principles of administrative laws laying down the scope of a
direction.
Having
considered the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties on
this point we are of the opinion that on the facts of the instant appeals it is
not necessary to go into the rival contentions referred to above on this point.
Here, the Electricity Board as is apparent from its proceedings dated 20th January, 1978 proceeded to implement the
directions with regard to fixation of concessional tariff issued by the State
Government and resolved to realise electricity charges from the appellants only
at the concessional tariff of 12.2 p. as fixed in the Government Order dated 26th November, 1977. It, however, took the further view
in the said proceedings that the directions issued by the Government did not
have any bearing on the obligation of the appellants to pay minimum charges
which they were bound to pay under the agreements executed by them even though
such minimum charges were to be calculated at the rate of 12.2 p. per unit
subject to escalation as indicated in the Government Orders in question. Such
minimum charges were payable even if no electricity was consumed by the
appellants for any reason whatsoever. It is in this context that we are of the
opinion that the question with regard to the nature of a direction issued under
section 78A of the Act is only of academic value in these appeals. The basic
question which falls for our consideration, however, is as to whether the
obligation of the appellants to pay minimum charges under the agreement
executed by them ceased to be operative on account of the directions issued by
the State Government fixing concessional tariff as has been asserted by learned
counsel for the appellants. As indicated earlier the case of the electricity
Board in this behalf has been that the directions in question did not have any
bearing on the obligation of the appellants to continue to pay minimum charges,
of course, to be calculated on the basis of the concessional tariff of 12.2 p.
per unit. A plain reading of the Government Orders dated 2nd Movement, 1977 and
26th November, 1977 makes it clear that there is no specific direction
contained therein that the appellants would not be bound to pay minimum charges
or that the obligation to pay minimum charges under the agreements executed by
them would remain suspended during the period when the concession tariff would
be operative. What was, however, urged by learned counsel for the appellants
was that the very purpose of fixing concessional tariff by the State Government
would be frustrated if the appellants are held to be bound to continue to pay
minimum charges in pursuance of the agreements entered into by them. With
regard to this submission it is at the outset necessary to appreciate the
genesis of 632 prescription of minimum charges. To put it succinctly the
purpose of prescribing minimum charges is to ensure that no undue loss is
caused to the Electricity Board because the absence of minimum charges is
likely to create a tendency in a prospective consumer to have connection for an
inflated requirement and having agreed to meet such requirement the Electricity
Board would be under an obligation to maintain the supply upto that requirement
even if no or very little energy is consumed.
In
Amalgamated electricity Co. v. Jalgaon Borough Municipality, [1975] 2 SCC Page 508 it was held in paragraph 9 of the
Report:
"Moreover
it is obvious that if the plaintiff company was to give bulk supply of
electricity at a concessional rate of 0.5 anna per unit it had to lay down
lines and to keep the power ready for being supplied as and when required. The
consumers could put their switches on whenever they liked and therefore the
plaintiff had to keep everything ready so that power is supplied the moment the
switch was put on. In these circumstances it was absolutely essential that the
plaintiff should have been ensured the payment of the minimum charges for the
supply of electrical energy whether consumed or not so that it may be able to
meet the bare maintenance expenses." In Bihar State Electricity Boara v.
Green Rubber Industries, [1990] 1 S.C.C. Page 731 while dealing with the
question whether the stipulation to pay minimum guarantee charges irrespective
of whether energy was consumed or not is reasonable and valid it was inter alia
held that considered by the test of reasonableness it cannot be said to be
unreasonable inasmuch as the supply of electricity to consumer involves
incurring of overhead installation expenses by the Board which do not very with
the quantity of electricity consumed and the installation has to be continued
irrespective of whether the energy is consumed or not.
The
purpose of prescribing minimum charges being, as stated above, can it be said
that while issuing the direction to the Electricity Board to supply electricity
to the five mini steel plants at concessional rate the State Government was
oblivious of the said purpose and required the Electricity Board not only to
supply electricity on the concessional rate but also incur undue loss in
maintaining the required bulk of energy stipulated in the various agreements
even if the concerned mini plants either used no energy or used very little
energy.
633 In
our opinion, on the material placed before us it is not possible to take the
view that such was the intention of the State Government in directing supply to
be made to the appellants on concessional tariff. That it was not the intention
of the State Government to do so was subsequently clarified by the State
Government itself vide Government Order dated 5th December, 1978. In this view
of the matter the submission made on behalf of the appellants that with the
grant of concessional tariff the agreements in so far as they required the
appellants to pay minimum charges ceased to be operative or that the purpose of
granting concessional tariff was likely to be frustrated if they were required
to continue to pay minimum charges cannot, therefore, by accepted. In granting concessional
tariff obviously it does not appear to be the purpose to compel the Electricity
Board to maintain the supply of the contracted load of electricity to the
appellants by incurring losses in the manner stated above. The only purpose in
directing supply of energy at concessional rates was reduce the charges of
actual energy consumed by the appellants and this purpose could not be
frustrated till the Electricity Board complied with the direction of supplying
electricity to them at the concessional rate. In this view of the matter it is
apparent that the direction of the State Government to the Electricity Board to
supply electricity to the appellants at concessional rate did not either
expressly or by necessary implication grant immunity to the appellants from payment
of of minimum charges.
In
support of the plea that the order of the State Government dated 5th December,
1978 which clarified that its earlier orders fixing concessional tariff did not
preclude the Electricity Board from levying minimum charges and the subsequent
order dated 12th March, 1979 withdrawing the concessional tariff were invalid
it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that those orders were
in violation of principles of natural justice as also the doctrine of
promissory estoppel. In so far as this submission is concerned what is of
significance is that by the Government Order dated 2nd November, 1977 and 26th
November, 1977 concession was granted to the appellants.
This
is manifest from the aforesaid Government Orders themselves which expressly
used the expression "concessional power tariff" or "concessional
tariff. At no stage, does it appear to have been disputed by the appellants
that what was extended to them by the said Government Orders was by way of
concession. In the context of granting exemption from sales tax certain
observations were made by this Court in Shri Bakul Oil Industries v. State of
Gujarat, [1987] 1 S.C.C. Page 31 which would, keeping in view the principle
laid down therein with regard to- 634 the grant of concession, be, in our
opinion, useful in considering the above stated submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellants. It was held:
"Viewed
from another perspective, it may be noticed that the State Government was under
no obligation to grant exemption from sales tax. The appellants could not,
therefore, have insisted on the State Government granting exemption to them
from payment of sales tax, What consequently follows is that the exemption
granted by the government was only by way of concession. Once this position
emerges it goes without saying that a concession can be withdrawn at any time
and no time limit can be insisted upon before the concession is withdrawn. The
notifications of the government clearly manifest that the State Government had
earlier granted the exemption only by way of concession and subsequently by
means of the revised notification issued on July 17, 1971, the concession had
been withdrawn. As the State Government was under no obligation, in any manner
known to law, to grant exemption it was fully within its powers to revoke the
exemption by means of a subsequent notification. This is an additional factor
militating against the contentions of the appellants." It was further
held:
"The
exemption granted by the government as already stated, was only by way of
concession for encouraging entrepreneurs to start industries in rural and
undeveloped areas and as such it was always open to the State Government to
withdraw or revoke the concession. We must, however, observe that the power of
revocation or withdrawal would be subject to one limitation viz. the power
cannot be exercised in violation of the rule of promissory estoppel. In other
words, the government can withdrawn an exemption granted by it earlier if such
withdrawal could be done without offending the rule of promissory estoppel and
depriving an industry entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax under the
said rule. If the government grants exemption to a new industry and if on the
basis of the representation made by the government an industry is established
in order to avail the benefit to exemption, it may then follow that the new
industry can legitimately raise a grievance that- 635 The exemption could not
be withdrawn except by means of legislation having regard to the fact that
promissory estoppel cannot be claimed against a statute." This being the
law with regard to grant of concession we are of the opinion that neither of
the two orders mentioned above can be said to be illegal on the ground that
they were passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Who only
question in this connection which survives is that of promissory estoppel. With
regard to this plea it would be seen that it is not the case of the appellants
that they established their mini plants after the grant of concessional tariff
by the two Government Orders referred to above and but for the grant of such concessional
tariff they would not have established their mini plants.
The
necessary facts so as to sustain the plea of promissory estoppel are not, in
our opinion, to be found to have been either pleaded or established by the
appellants. To take it by way of an illustration reference may be made to the
special leave petition giving rise to Civil Appeal Nos. 1454-1463 of 1981 filed
by M/s. Andhra Steel Corporation Ltd. The plea with regard to promissory estoppel
is to be found in ground no.(i) which reads :
"Whether
in view of the fact that the Petitioner had acted upon the Government orders
dated 2.11.1977 and 26.11.1977 and thus altered its position (as without the
concessions being granted to the Petitioner they would not have possibly run
the industry, since it was bound to suffer huge (losses) is the State
Government stopped from revoking, or modifying the same before the full period
of concession had run out of efflux of time that is, by 31-10-1980?" (emphasis
supplied) Almost identical is ground no.(i) in the special leave petition
giving rise to Civil Appeal Nos. 1642-1645 of 1981.
The
use of the word "possible" is obviously indicative of lack of
specific averment with regard to principle of estoppel. Even such an averment
has not been made qua the Electricity Board. With regard to the plea based on
the doctrine of legitimate expectation suffice if to say that except invoking
the said doctrine nothing substantial was brought to our notice on the basis of
which the appellants could be held entitled to any relief.
In so
far as the Government Order dated 16th January, 1980 on which reliance has been
placed by learned counsel for the appellants in- 636 The alternative is
concerned it may be pointed out that the said order even though in substance
amounts to a clarification of the earlier order of clarification dated 5th
December, 1978, states nothing as to why the clarification contained in the
order dated 5th December, 1978 in categorical terms did not express the real
intention of the State Government in issuing the earlier Government Orders
granting concessional tariff. As already indicated above, the orders granting concessional
tariff, in our opinion, did not either expressly or by necessary implication
grant immunity to the mini steel plants from their obligation to pay minimum
charges and this having been categorically stated by the State Government in
its clarificatory order dated 5th December, 1978 there was apparently no basis
for issuing the second clarificatory order dated 16th January, 1980. Further,
the said order dated 16th January, 1980 had been issued on some representation
made on behalf of the mini steel plants at a point of time when writ petitions
on their behalf had already been filed in the High Court and the matter was subjudice.
In such a situation , apart from the propriety of issuing the second clarificatory
order datd 16th January, 1980 it is obvious that what was contained in this
order is analogous to an averment made by the State Government in replay to the
writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants. In our opinion, in the
circumstances poinited out above the order dated 16th January, 1980 has no
bearing in finding out the true import of the orders of the State Government
granting concessional tariff.
In
view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in these
appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
No.
costs.
Back