JUDGMENT
S.N. Srivastava and S.S. Chauhan, JJ.
1. By way of this petition the petitioner prays for quashing the impugned demand notice dated 17.3.2007 and electricity bill dated 24.3.2007 and further prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to follow the orders passed by the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 11.7.2006 as well as clarification order dated 14.9.2006, contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition and also to permit the petitioner to allow power loom benefit as per orders dated 11.7.2006 and 14.9.2006 passed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission.
2. The petitioner in the instant petition claims himself to be a consumer of electricity with HV2 category connection. The aforesaid company is registered company running a power loom where thread is manufactured. It would appear that in order to provide certain benefits to the weaker sections of the society i.e., weaver, the State of U.P., issued Government order dated 14.6.2006, postulating certain benefits to the power loom weavers. It would further appear that the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission commended to the State Government to make available all those benefits to power loom consumers including HV2 category power loom consumers vide Annexures-1 and 2. It would further appear that the recommendation of the State Regulatory Commissioner did not find favour with the State Government and it was communicated vide letter dated 1.5.2007 to the effect that subsidy is intended for weavers who are of LMV2 and LMV 6 category. In this view of the matter, a demand notice dated 17.3.2007 was issued and it is in this perspective that present petition has been issued.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, have also been taken through the materials on record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the petitioner being a consumer of electricity with HV2 category connection and also that the company aforesaid is engaged in manufacturing thread is entitled to be considered for extending the benefits flowing from the Government order dated 14.6.2006 by which certain benefits have been postulated for power loom weavers. The learned Counsel also referred to the recommendations of the State Regulatory Commission and argued the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission being the appropriate competent authority under the Electricity Act, 2003, made recommendation under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, but the same did not find favour with the Government attended with the submission that benefits contained in the Government order dated 14.6.2006 are intended for application to weavers and petitioner company engaged in manufacturing thread comes within the definition of weaver and is therefore, entitled to subsidy. It is further submitted that the U.P. Electricity Regulatory Commissioner rightly commended to the State Government vide Annexures-1 and 2 to provide the benefit to HV 2 category power loom consumers also and therefore, he urged that the petitioner is entitled to be extended the benefit flowing from the Government order dated 14.6.2006. Lastly, it was canvassed that the demand notice is highly arbitrary and the same has been issued without taking into reckoning the benefits of subsidy intended for weavers.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the U.P. Power Corporation urged that the subsidy is provided by the Government under its policy framed under Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the petitioner not being the Bunker was rightly not considered for the benefit of subsidy being consumer of HV2 category. Learned Counsel further urged that the State Government has decided to provide subsidy only to those persons who are the weavers and the petitioner being an industry, the policy decision of the Government contradicts its extension to the petitioner the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of subsidy which is an Industry which does not fall within the meaning of weaver.
6. After hearing the parties counsel and on perusal of the entire material on record, the relevant provision of the Electricity Act, 2003, the following facts emerge.
7. Section 108 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is being quoted as follows:
108. Directions by State Government.–(1) In the discharge of its functions, the State Commission shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the State Government may give to it in writing.
(2) If any question arises as to whether any such direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final.
This clause seeks to confer power upon the State Government to issue direction in writing to the State Commission on questions of policy and the Commission shall be bound by such directions. If any question arises as to whether such direction relate to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the State Government shall be final.
8. In the present case, as stated supra, the State issued Government order dated 14.6.2006, containing policy decision of giving benefit of subsidy to weavers. It further appears from the record that the U. P. Electricity Regulatory Commission commended the matter of extension of benefit of subsidy to the class of consumers having HV 2 connection. It would further appear that the State Government by means of letter dated 1.5.2007, contained in Annexure-IV. to the counter-affidavit, communicated in no Delphic terms that the subsidy will be available only to LMV 2 and LMV-6 category consumers. In this connection, Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003, may also be referred to which makes it clear that if the State Government requires the grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff determined by the State Commission under Section 62, the State Government shall notwithstanding any direction which may be given under Section 108 pay in advance and in such manner as may be specified the amount to compensate the person affected by the grant of subsidy in the manner the State Commission may direct as a condition for the licence or any other person concerned to implement the subsidy provided for by the State Government. Section 65 of the Act being relevant is quoted as follows :
65. Provision of subsidy by State Government.–If the State Government requires the grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff determined by the State Commission under Section 62, the State Government shall, notwithstanding any direction which may be given under Section 108, pay, in advance and in such manner as may be specified, the amount to compensate the person affected by the grant of subsidy in the manner the State Commission may direct, as a condition for the licence or any other person concerned to implement the subsidy provided for by the State Government:
Provided that no such direction of the State Government shall be operative if the payment is not made in accordance with the provisions contained in this section and the tariff fixed by the State Commission shall be applicable from the date of issue of orders by the Commission in this regard.
9. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act doing the business of manufacturing thread. The policy decision contained in the Government order dated 16.6.2006 clearly postulates that the scheme of subsidy shall be applicable to weavers alone. The petitioner company being an industry, does not fall within the definition of weavers and mere fact that it is also engaged in manufacturing thread does not commend itself to be brought within the definition of weavers. The subsidy is paid by the Government to help persons or class of persons by keeping the prices down. Section 65 as quoted above, clearly postulates that if the State Government requires the grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff determined by the State Commission, it shall pay in advance the amount to compensate the person. It would thus appear that the amount of subsidy is to be provided by the Government to help such persons or class of persons as may be specified in its policy decision by the Government. Since any such policy decision involves public exchequer the State Government is bound to keep in mind the social and economic aspect of the matter. Such scheme under any policy decision are intended by the Government for the benefit of particular class and therefore, the benefits flowing from such policy decision are to be extended only to those persons or class of persons as may be specified in the policy decision. The policy decision of the Government is contained in the order dated 14.6.2006 which clearly postulates that the scheme is intended for weavers. Yet another aspect to be considered is that the subsidy is normally provided to the weaker section of the society and the petitioner’s society is not a sick industry entitled to be rehabilitated under the scheme of B.F.R. The intention of the policy decision of the State is clear that subsidy is provided only to the weaver and not to an industry, who are members of the weaker section of the society so that they may run their own business and to continue to earn their livelihood. From a close scrutiny of the Government order dated 14.6.2006 and also from materials on record, we are satisfied that the policy decision is intended for weavers who are members of the weaker section of the society with a view to enabling them to run their own business and earn livelihood and the same is not intended for the class of persons like the petitioners which is an industry and therefore, benefits flowing from the policy decision are not intended to be extended to petitioner’s company and as such, this Court feels called to observe that the demand notice was rightly issued by the authorities. There is no error apparent on the face of it. In the ultimate analysis, no interference is called for and the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
10. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner commiseratingly submitted that the petitioner’s industry is not in properly running position in the present days and will not be able to deposit the entire outstanding dues.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also regard being had to the fact that it would not subserve the interest of the society to keep the industry closed any longer, it is directed that in case the petitioner deposits the outstanding amount due up to 3.12.2007, other than the current amount within six equal monthly instalment, the electricity connection will not be disconnected for six months. The first instalment shall be payable by 16th June, 2007. In case of default of any of the term, the interim order shall cease to be operative automatically and the respondents would be at liberty to proceed accordingly in the matter. However, it is made clear that the amount deposited by the petitioner under interim order dated 17.4.2007, shall be given credit accordingly towards the outstanding demand against the petitioner.
11. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.