Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited & Others
v.
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 537 Of 2000 | 20-01-2009
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, Shri Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel for U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. And Shri Shail Kumar Dwivedi for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. It appears that the petitioner had been granted the development rebate of 33.33% by the U.P. State Electricity Board and it is alleged that this was in view of the policy of the State Government to encourage industrialization of the hill areas.
4. Subsequently, the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 came into force with effect from 14-1-2000. This Court by its judgment in U.P. Power Corpon. Ltd. V. Sant Steels & Alloyes (P). Ltd. 2008 (2) SCC 777 [LQ/SC/2007/1510 ;] held that the rebate concession would be valid till the Act of 1999 came into force (vide SCC para 34).
5. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel submits that the observation in the aforesaid para 34 that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the rebate concession after 14-1-2000 is legally not correct because under Section 12 of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the State Government is entitled to issue policy directions to the Regulatory Commission, just as it earlier had power to issue policy directions to the U.P. State Electricity Board under Section 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 948.
6. We are of the opinion that this argument of Shri Shanti Bhushan a requires consideration by a larger Bench since it is an important question as there can be no doubt that industrialization of hill areas in the State of Uttaranchal is in the public interest.
7. In view of this we are of the opinion that this question, as to whether the rebate concession granted to the writ petitioner from 1997 to 2002 should continue till 2002 or will cease to have effect after 14-1-2000 and thereafter, deserves consideration by a larger Bench being an important question of law. Let the papers of this case be put before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for deciding the aforesaid question.
2. Heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, Shri Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel for U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. And Shri Shail Kumar Dwivedi for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. It appears that the petitioner had been granted the development rebate of 33.33% by the U.P. State Electricity Board and it is alleged that this was in view of the policy of the State Government to encourage industrialization of the hill areas.
4. Subsequently, the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 came into force with effect from 14-1-2000. This Court by its judgment in U.P. Power Corpon. Ltd. V. Sant Steels & Alloyes (P). Ltd. 2008 (2) SCC 777 [LQ/SC/2007/1510 ;] held that the rebate concession would be valid till the Act of 1999 came into force (vide SCC para 34).
5. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel submits that the observation in the aforesaid para 34 that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the rebate concession after 14-1-2000 is legally not correct because under Section 12 of the U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, the State Government is entitled to issue policy directions to the Regulatory Commission, just as it earlier had power to issue policy directions to the U.P. State Electricity Board under Section 78-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 948.
6. We are of the opinion that this argument of Shri Shanti Bhushan a requires consideration by a larger Bench since it is an important question as there can be no doubt that industrialization of hill areas in the State of Uttaranchal is in the public interest.
7. In view of this we are of the opinion that this question, as to whether the rebate concession granted to the writ petitioner from 1997 to 2002 should continue till 2002 or will cease to have effect after 14-1-2000 and thereafter, deserves consideration by a larger Bench being an important question of law. Let the papers of this case be put before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for deciding the aforesaid question.
Advocates List
For the Petitioners Shanti Bhushan, M.L. Lahoty, Senior Advocates (Paban Kr. Sharma, Sudhir Kr. Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents Shail Kr. Dwivedi, Additional Advocate General (Pradeep Misra, Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Vibha Dwivedi, Ms. Vandana Mishra, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
Eq Citation
(2011) 3 SCC 217
LQ/SC/2009/116
HeadNote
Electricity — Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 — Ss. 78-A & 79 — Rebate concession — Whether continued after coming into force of U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 — Hill areas — Industrialization of, in public interest — U.P. Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, S. 12
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.