JUDGMENT
Dubagunta Subrahmanyam, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in W.P No. 25 of 1993 aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.1998 by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the said writ petition.
2. The writ petition was filed requesting this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the petitioner an additional amount of Rs. 0.10 ps per bulk litre on arrack supplies from 1.10.1989 to 28.2.1991 and Rs. 0.235 ps per bulk litre of Rectified spirit supplied from 1.10.1989 to 30.11.1992 and in future as per G.O Ms. No. 91 Revenue Excise-Ill Department, dated 7.2.1991 by declaring the proceedings in number Bl/3494/91/DDB/ Ex., dated 30-11-1992 of the Commissioner of Excise and the consequential proceedings of Director of Distilleries and Breweries, AP in C.R No. C3/2320/92/DDB/Ex. dated 16-1-1993 as illegal, arbitrary, void abinitio and unenforceable.
3. The Distilleries Association demanded the State Government to enhance the purchase price of arrack with effect from 1.10.1987. By G.O. Ms. No. 401, Revenue, dated 8.5.1990, the Government constituted a Committee of Officers to examine the demands of Distilleries Association and make recommendations to Government. Pending receipt of the report of the Committee, interim orders were issued in G.O. Ms. No.402, Revenue, dated 8.5.1990 fixing the purchase price of arrack as per the rates indicated in the said G.O. with effect from 1.10.1989. Subsequently, the Committee of Officers submitted the report. The Committee was of the opinion that there is no justification for increase in the price of arrack with effect from 1.10.1987 or 1.10.1988. It recommended the rates of purchase price of arrack with effect from 1.3.1989 and those rates include Rs. 0.05 ps. towards the pollution control fund. The Committee recommended that an additional payment of Rs. 0.10 paise per B.L of 30 UP arrack be made to those distilleries which commission both anerobic and aerobic treatment plants for the effluents made them functional and obtain a certificate to that effect from the A.P. Pollution Control Board.
4. The Government after examining the report of the Committee of Officers decided to accept the recommendations of the Committee in toto. It issued G.O Ms. No. 91, Revenue (EX.III) Department dated 7.2.1991. This writ petition relates to additional payment of Rs. 0.10 ps. per BL of 30 UP arrack. The Government order as per G.O Ms. No. 91 relating to the above additional payment reads as follows:
“The Government also order that an additional payment of 0.10 paise per B.L on arrack of 30 UP supplied, be made to those distilleries which commission both anerobic and aerobic treatment plants for the effluents, subject to the conditions that they produce a certificate to that effect from the A.P. Pollution Control Board.”
5. It is pleaded by the writ petitioner that it erected effluent treatment plant at the cost of Rs.2.5 crores comprising anerobic and aerobic plants apart from activated sludge process and they have commissioned it from 1.10.1988. On this aspect, in the counter it is admitted that the petitioner-unit has erected effluent treatment plant comprising of anerobic and aerobic plants. It is further pleaded in the counter that after erecting the said effluent treatment plant, the writ petitioner applied for the release of loan assistance of Rs. 25.00 lakhs from the Government to install and complete the biomanipulation plant so as to achieve the standards prescribed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. It is pleaded that since the petitioner itself is committing that the plant erected is not in complete shape and wanted loan assistance from the Government to achieve the standards, it is not entitled for the payment of additional amount of Rs. 0.10 ps. However, in the counter-affidavit, it is admitted that the A.P. Pollution Control Board has certified that the plant erected by the writ petitioner satisfies the standards stipulated and they have been achieved by the writ petitioner unit. Therefore, just because the writ petitioner wanted to establish additional plant, it does not mean that it is not entitled for the benefits mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 91. Further, it is stated in the counter that since the petitioner-unit attained the prescribed standards, sanction has been accorded for payment of additional Rs. 0.10 ps. per BL of 30 UP supplied to all bottling units with effect from 7.2.1991 i.e. from the date of issue of G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 7.2.1991. Therefore, undoubtedly the writ petitioner is entitled for the payment of additional sum of Rs. 0.10 ps. even according to the respondents, with effect from 7.2.1991 subject to the condition that the writ petitioner produces the concerned certificate every month from the A.P. Pollution Control Board. The contention regarding this condition of producing month to month certificate from the A.P. Pollution Control Board will be dealt with at a later stage.
6. It is the contention of the writ petitioner-appellant that as the rates were enhanced with effect from 1.3.1989 by G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 7.2.1991, the benefit of additional payment of Rs. 0.10 ps. is also to be given with effect from 1.3.1989 and not from 7.2.1991. The learned single Judge in his order observed that in the absence of G.O. Ms. No. 91, the petitioner could not have claimed any incentive, if the petitioner had established the effluent treatment plant prior to the issuance of the G.O. and that even the language in G.O. Ms. No. 91 whereunder incentive was stated does not give scope for any other construction. The learned single Judge was further of the opinion that the language of Clause 7 extracted supra in the course of this judgment does not indicate any benefit being given to the industries which had already established effluent treatment plant prior to the issuance of the G.O. The learned single Judge held that he does not find any merit in the submission that incentive should date back to the date of establishment of the effluent treatment plant by the petitioner.
7. Having regard to the circumstances under which G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 7.2.1991 was issued by the Government and after reading as a whole all the clauses mentioned in the said G.O., we are unable to accept the view taken by the learned single Judge. The association was demanding increase in the purchase price with effect from 1.10.1987. As an interim measure, the Government increased rates retrospectively with effect from 1.10.1989 as per the rates mentioned in G.O. Ms. No.402 dated 9.5.1990. G.O. Ms. No. 401 as well as G.O, Ms. No.402, both dated 9.5.1990 were issued by the Government after negotiations with the A.P. Distilleries Association. Even Committee of the Officers was appointed by the Government to look into the matter in pursuance of the negotiations and .in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No. 401 dated 9.5.1990. Subsequently, after the Committee made its recommendations, the Government accepted the recommendations in toto regarding rates retrospectively with effect from 1.3.1989. Coming to the incentive payment of additional price of Rs. 0.10 paise, it is to be stated that it forms part of the price and it is not a separate component as such. Therefore, any industry having effluent treatment plant is entitled for the purchase price inclusive of additional price of Rs. 0.10 paise. In this regard it is to be stated that the Government decided to collect Rs. 0.05 paise towards pollution control fund retrospectively with effect from 1.3.1989. That 0.05 paise also was included in the rates of prices mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 7.2.1991. As already noticed, the rates of prices fixed in G.O. Ms. No. 91 relate back to 1.3.1989 and they did not come into force with effect from 7.2.1991, the date on which the above G.O. was issued. We have already pointed out that the additional price of Rs. 0.10 paise given as an incentive for the industries having effluent treatment plant is inclusive of the purchase price. Therefore, when the Government decided to increase the rates of purchase price retrospectively with effect from 1.3.1989 and not with effect from 7.2.1991, we are of the considered opinion that the additional price of Rs. 0.10 paise is liable to be paid to such of the industries which are having effluent treatment plants by 1.3.1989. If any of the industries erected such effluent treatment plants either subsequent to 1.3.1989 or subsequent to 7.2.1991 they are entitled for the additional price of Rs. 0.10 paise from the date of establishing such effluent treatment plants. We are of the opinion that the order of the learned single Judge on this aspect is not correct and is liable to be set aside.
8. The writ petitioner claimed purchase price inclusive of additional price of Rs. 0.10 ps. and submitted the bills to the respondents. In the counter the respondents stated that they have no objection to pay the bills with effect from 7.2.1991 subject to certain conditions.
9. The Commissioner of Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued a proceeding dated 30.11.1992 to the writ petitioner-unit. In that proceedings, he accorded sanction for payment of additional Rs. 0.10 ps. per BL of 30 UP arrack with effect from 7.2.1991 subject to achievement of the values as prescribed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board on month to month basis.
10. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner that inasmuch as the respondents admitted that the writ petitioner unit established effluent treatment plant by 1.3.1989, and as it is certified by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, the respondents are not entitled to insist a certificate on month to month basis from the writ petitioner. We are unable to accept the above contention. Mere establishment of effluent treatment plant is not sufficient to claim the benefit of additional price in the shape of incentive of Rs. 0.10 ps. granted by G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 7.2.1991. For claiming such incentive by way of additional price of Rs. 0.10 ps. it must be shown that during the period covered by the claim the said effluent treatment plant is functioning and it is achieving the standards prescribed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board during the relevant period. Therefore, it is essential and obligatory on the part of the writ petitioner to produce a certificate from the A.P. Pollution Control Board for every period covered by its claim showing that the effluent treatment plant established by it is really functioning and it is achieving the standards fixed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. In our considered opinion, the writ petitioner is not entitled to claim of payment of additional price (incentive) of Rs. 0.10 ps. from the respondents without production of relevant certificate from the Pollution Control Board. The order of the learned single Judge on this aspect is not liable to be varied or set aside. We find no force in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding this aspect of the order of the learned single Judge.
11. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed partly. The order of the learned single Judge is partly set aside. The writ petition is allowed partly. The respondent is directed to pay additional price (incentive) of Rs. 0,10 ps. as mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 7-2-1991 with effect from 1-3-1989 to the writ petitioner-unit subject to production of a certificate from the A.P. Pollution Control Board on month to month basis regarding functioning of effluent treatment plant and achieving the standards fixed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.