Summary
A Kerala government order of 1992 exempted new industrial units from enhanced power tariff for five years from the start of commercial production. Rubfila started production on 26.03.1995 and received the exemption up to March 2000. It then claimed five years from its later date of energisation, relying on the treatment given to another unit, Patspin. The Kerala High Court allowed the claim and refused to review it, even though the Board had withdrawn Patspin's benefit in 2001. The Supreme Court reversed. Once Patspin's benefit was withdrawn, the claim to parity had no foundation, and that was an error apparent on the record. Article 14 does not support negative equality.
Issues
- Whether an industrial unit could claim exemption from enhanced power tariff for five years from the date of energisation, rather than of commercial production, on parity with another unit whose like benefit had since been withdrawn.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing review once the withdrawal of the benefit relied on was brought to its notice.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaParity cannot be claimed with a benefit that has been withdrawn, nor to obtain something the Government Order does not contemplate; Article 14 does not support negative equality. (¶ 21)
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The unchallenged withdrawal of the Patspin benefit, which nullified the foundation of the High Court's judgment, was an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. (¶ 20)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court's writ appeal judgment and review order were set aside. (¶¶ 20, 24)
Held
- Under the Government Order of 6 February 1992 the exemption runs for five years from the date the unit started commercial production; the respondent's commercial production began on 26 March 1995, settled in the first round of litigation, and it was granted the exemption up to 25 March 2000. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- The claim to reckon the period from energisation rested solely on parity with M/s Patspin India Ltd., but the Board's order of 22 November 2001 withdrawing that benefit remained unchallenged; the foundation of the claim was thus nullified, and the High Court's view that the withdrawal did not efface its finding was an error apparent on the record and unsustainable. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The further claim to 214 days of concessional tariff for periods of 50% or more power cut was not raised before the High Court, and in any event the Board's order of 18 October 2000 had already extended pre-1992 tariff to the respondent from 26 March 2000 for that purpose; S.V.A. Steel Re-Rolling Mills had been complied with. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 8457-8458 of 2022 allowed; the Kerala High Court's judgment dated 22.11.2018 in WA No. 2089 of 2018 and order dated 29.07.2019 in RP No. 506 of 2019 set aside; no costs.