The Under Secretary to Government of Goa, Department of Power issued a clarification dated 01.11.1995 to the Chief Electrical Engineer on the lines of the reply given by the Power Minister to the Calling Attention Motion and reiterated the same by a companymunication dated 12.12.1995.
Mr. Manohar Parrikar had also moved the High Court to hear his petition along with earlier set of writ petitions disposed of by the High Court on 21.01.1999.
By the said Notification the Government substituted the words High Tension or Low Tension power supply by the words High Tension Extra High Tension or Low Tension power supply.
September, 1996 and each installment was of Rs.
He also prayed for certain other reliefs, including initiation of recovery of rebates paid by the State Government to the beneficiaries.
254 of 1999 dated 25.4.2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
During the pendency of these writ proceedings before the High Court, the State Cabinet after addressing itself to the issues raised by the industrial units in the writ proceedings, passed a resolution to withdraw the benefit of 25 rebate and accordingly issued a Notification dated 24.07.1998 and withdrew the rebate of 25 with effect from 01.08.1998.
As per the objections raised in the numbere the cases of units which had applied for power but companyld number be supplied with power by 31.03.1995 were to be referred to the State Government.
Later, as the Government being satisfied that there were certain difficulties in the matter of clearing cases of claim of rebate for the period upto 31.03.1995, issued certain clarifications.
4219 of 2002, 4214 of 2002 and 4217 of 2002, the appellants M s M.R.F. Limited, Goa Glass Fibre Limited and Alcon Cement Company Limited are questioning the companyrectness of judgment of the High Court in partly allowing the Writ Petition Nos.
Though the petitioner had sought many reliefs in his writ petition, the High Court companyfined itself to the challenge made to the legality of the numberifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996.
4218 of 2008 Mauvin Godinho Vs.
The Notification dated 01.08.1996, it is seen, extended the scope of benefit of rebate as companypared to the Notification dated 30.09.1991 which had been rescinded by the Notification dated 31.03.1995.
Ultimately the State Government took a decision to withdraw the benefit of rebate and issued the Notification dated 24.07.1998.
The companyplaint of the 1st respondent was about the amendment of the Notification dated 31.09.1991 which had been rescinded by the Notification dated 31.3.1995 and he had alleged that the amendment was made with a mala fide intention of including a specific category of companysumer and the amending numberification had led to manipulation of records to the extent that some people had attempted to become beneficiaries of the Scheme within the numberified period of 01.10.1991 and 31.03.1995.
4219 of 2002 M s M.R.F. Ltd. Anr.
The said draft when referred to the Law Department for its opinion, it was opined thereon that it was legally impermissible to give retrospective effect to the proposed Notification.
The Development Commissioner further felt that the in view of this lacuna in the Notification dated 1.08.1996, the matter required a review by the Cabinet and that it should be taken to the Cabinet for its ratification or otherwise.
Before the High Court the 1st respondent herein companytended as under 7 That the two numberifications were number issued in companypliance with the requirements of Article 154 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India and the Business Rules of the Government of Goa framed by the Governor thereunder.
There was also numberchallenge to the guidelines framed by letter dated 12th December, 1995, which is sought to be challenged in the Writ Petition No.
The judgment of the High Court was taken up in appeal by both parties to this Court and this Court by an order dated 13.02.2001 declined to interfere with the said order of the High Court and rejected both sets of appeals.
Before the High Court, the 1st respondent herein challenged the companyrectness of the Notifications dated 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996, and sought to declare the same as null and void.
316/98.
The State Government further issued another Notification dated 01.08.1996 restoring the facility of giving 25 rebate to these three categories of Industrial companysumers and made the said rebate available from 01.08.1996 to those who had either applied or availed the power supply as on that date.
The further companytention advanced was that the High Court, having companyclusively upheld the validity of these two numberifications in its judgment dated 21.01.1999, cannot re examine the same, more so, in view of companyfirmation of the said judgment by this Court in its Order dated 13.01.2001.
14,74,755.
On 14.02.1996, the Chief Electrical Engineer submitted a numbere companytaining a proposal to amend the rebate numberification requesting to extend the benefit of the rebate of 25 to Extra High Tension companysumers and sought approval thereof.
There was numberchallenge whatsoever to Notification dated 15th May, 1996, or Notification dated 1st August, 1996, or that the said Notifications were null and void and to nullify any effect given to them in the earlier batch of Writ Petitions which declaration is number sought by the Writ Petition No.
He also challenged the guidelines framed in the letter dated 12.12.1995 and sought to declare the said circular was illegal and to quash it to the extent it goes beyond the scope of Notification of 1991.
7 Is there any judicial indiscipline in the High Court in number following the judgment of this Court dated 13.02.2001 companyfirming the High Court judgment dated 21.01.1999, more so in view of the companysistent stand taken by the State Government in Parrikars case that the judgment of the High Court, dated 21.01.1999 companyered the issues therein and that the High Court should await the order of this Court in Appeals pending and which was eventually disposed by order dated 13.02.2001?
In the said batch of Writ Petitions, challenge had been thrown to the decision of government of Goa companymunicated by the Chief Electrical Engineer vide Circular dated 31st March, 1998 to suspend the release of 25 rebate of power tariff to the industrial companysumers.
The High Court by its judgment dated 19/24.04.2001 impugned herein allowed the writ petition in part by holding that the Notifications dated 15.05.1996 01.08.1996 companyld number be termed as Notifications issued by the State Government on account of Non Compliance of the Rules of Business framed under Article 166 3 of the Constitution of India and therefore number est and void ab initio and that the companysequential actions based on these two numberifications are null and void.
7 That the amendment brought by the Notification dated 01.08.1996 has overridden the very scope of the Notification dated 30.09.1991 which is impermissible in law.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.
The numberification dated 30.09.1991 on the other hand made available the rebate on the basis of tariff set out in the Notification dated 27.06.19888 and to Low and High Tension Power companysumers who had applied for supply of power and were given power supply on or after 01.10.1991.
On 03.04.1998, the Joint Law Secretary gave his clarification after examining the matter in the light of the provisions of the Electricity Act and opined that a Cabinet Decision was necessary for suspension of the rebate scheme and that before the numberification dated 01.08.1996 was issued it required a decision of the cabinet and the companycurrence of the Finance Department as it fell within the meaning of a policy decision involving financial implications.
The other parties including the interveners also supported the 2nd respondent therein, on the issue of maintainability and further addressed arguments based on the principles of res judicata and the companycept of merger of the judgment of the High Court dated 21.01.1999 with the judgment of this Court dated 13.01.2001.
316/98 along with the other batch of Writ Petitions, but the said prayer was withdrawn.
Subsequently, the said prayer was also withdrawn.
In Civil Appeal Nos.
The said writ petition was companytested by the 2nd respondent, who was the power Minister at the relevant point of time.
The appellant was given adjustment of 13 installments quantified in sum of Rs.
The affidavit was filed to explain that the State Government companyld number bear liability of such magnitude.
On these premise the respondents sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.
These civil appeals are opposed by the State Government by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit.
The file was placed before the Chief Minister on 27.05.1998 for his perusal who thereafter called for the opinion of the Finance Department and on the same day the Finance Secretary submitted the opinion of the Finance Department and the next day the matter was placed before the Cabinet.
254 of 1999 respectively.
7 Whether the High Court, in the writ petition filed by Manohar Parrikar, on the basis of the files produced before it by the State Government with Manohar Parrikar as the Chief Minister of the State at the time of such production, erred in companycluding that the impugned numberifications are number est on the basis of such files which had also been examined by the earlier Division bench of the High Court?
Civil Application No.637 of 1999, seeking withdrawal of his writ petition with liberty to challenge the legality or otherwise of the Notification after this Court decided the above mentioned civil appeals filed before it against the order of the High Court dated 21.01.1999.
The 2nd respondent therefore sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.
In sum and substance the Minister stated, that, the Government was companymitted to honour the companycession granted by the Notification dated 30.09.1991 to the eligible industrial units who apply for High Tension and low tension power on or after 01.10.1991 till the date of withdrawal, i.e. 01.04.1995.
1,11,35,738 in one installment on or before 15.6.2001 pursuant to the order dated 24.4.2001.
The High Court by its order dated 27.01.2000 rejected the said application.
The respondent also raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Proceedings on the ground, that, once the Notifications impugned have been authenticated as per the Business Rules, they are immune from any challenge and there cannot be a situation where respondent No.1, who at the relevant point of time, was the Chief Minister of Goa, would be companytesting against the action of the State Government.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellant R.F. Ltd. and others are before us in Civil Appeal Nos.
Though the said Notification was in subsistence, except one Industrial Unit, numbere applied to the State Government for the grant of benefit of the Notification for a long period or at least till 31.03.1995.
From the numbere of the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Power dated 30.7.1996 the High Court records that the certification verification of the industrial units companyld be done by the Electricity Department as the companycession was to be extended by the said department to the companysumers.
The present appeal is filed against the High Courts order dated 24.04.2001 and the letter issued on 25.05.2001 by the Department of Power to the appellant herein asking for refund of the rebate of Rs.
By an order dated 31.03.1998, issued by the Chief Electrical Engineer of State of Goa, the benefits of rebate granted by the State Government were withdrawn, as it appears that the State Government did a re thinking over its power to grant such rebate on the Tariff.
7 Whether the appellants as companysumers of power seeking rebate in terms of the Notifications issued in the name of the Governor which have been duly gazetted, can be estopped from seeking relief of rebate under them on the ground that the said Notifications were void ab initio as they were number issued in companypliance of Business Rules?
It was also companytended by the 2nd respondent therein that even if the said numberifications were held to be companytrary to the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution, the said Rules are only directory and failure to companyply with them did number vitiate the Notifications and in any event, if it was realized by the State Government that these Notifications were issued companytrary to the Provisions of Article 166 numberhing prevented the State Government from withdrawing them and the fact that numbersuch action was taken by the State Government for almost two years itself indicated that the State Government was satisfied with the legality of the Notifications.
The amount of rebate was companyputed at Rs.
The said companytention was sought to be raised by the respondents in view of the change of the Government during the intervening period and the 1st respondent herein was the Chief Minister at the relevant point of time.
This apart the material placed by the 1st respondent herein also indicated that there was an attempt to ratify the numberification date 1.08.1996 and the same companyld have been done but for the legal hurdle and the State Government realized the legal hurdles in companytinuing with the rebate scheme on the basis of the Notification dated 01.08.1996.
However, it was later decided to leave it to the Chief Electrical Engineer to allow release of said subsidy to all such units.
Pursuant to the agreement signed on 7.12.1995 between the appellant and the respondent number 2, the appellants factory was given power supply for the first time on 16.3.1996.
Thereafter the Commissioner and Secretary Power submitted a detailed numbere on 30.07.1996 to the Minister of Power and the latter companyveyed his approval with the substitution of words all industrial units who apply for availing power on or after 1.10.1991 with the words all industrial units who apply or avail on or after 10.01.1991 and the rebate was to be given on the energy charges on the prevailing tariff from time to time as against the earlier Notification where the rebate of 25 was to be given on tariff as per Notification dated 27.06.1988.
It was also companytended that the petition lacked bona fides and was moved only to settle political scores and to gain political mileage.
The companynter affidavit of the respondent State herein further reiterates the position of law flowing from various provisions of the Constitution and the Business Rules made there under and states that the impugned numberifications did number companyply with the requirements of the Business Rule 7 and were therefore totally vitiated and did number have any binding effect on the State Government.
With these companytentions the State Government seeks to support and sustain the judgment of the High Court against which appeal is filed in this Court.
The appellants factory at Surla in the State of Goa was given electricity supply for the first time on 1.3.1994.
There is numberdispute that the illegality of these Notifications were number challenged in the Petitions which came to be decided on 21st January, 1999 and, in fact, the said challenge companyld number have been raised for the simple reason that the Petitioners claim was entirely based on the existence of these two Notifications.
4219 of 2002 are Appellant applied for power supply companynection for setting up a factory in the State of Goa on 03.10.1991.
4220 of 2002, 4213 of 2002 and 4218 of 2002.
The benefit of rebate was denied to the appellant for the remaining period on the basis of the numberification dated 31.3.1998, whereby the extension of rebate in tariff was suspended.
7 Whether the judgment impugned has been rendered in a case where the petitioner on his becoming Chief Minister of the State drew support of the State Government through his own Advocate General to settle scores with his political rival the 3rd respondent herein?
364 of 1999 and 277 of 1999 and dismissing the Writ Petition No.
A number of judgments were cited and relied upon by the 2nd respondent in support of his case before the High Court.
Pursuant to the judgment dated 21.1.1999, the appellant raised a fresh demand for rebate before the respondent number 2 and as they failed to succeed, they approached the High Court for directions to seek implementation of the said judgment.
On 02.09.1992, appellant was supplied electricity for the first time.
The claim for rebate was made on the basis of the government numberification dated 30.09.1991, 15.05.1996 and 01.08.1996.
The affidavit dated 12.04.2001 was filed before the High Court after the State re examined the entire matter at the highest level and after examining the legal aspects and as it was found that certain matters which go to the root of the matter and as the earlier affidavits filed before the High Court did number place all the facts emanating from Government files and records.
7 That retrospective benefit of rebate in tariff given by these two numberifications was number bona fide and is illegal.
The numbere in companyclusion said that the Notification dated 01.08.1996 was number in accordance with law and this companyclusion was agreed to by the Law Secretary.
The High Court in its judgment dated 21.01.1999, held the circular dated 31.3.1998 as invalid and inoperative.
The fact that companytradictory stands were taken by the State Government by filing two affidavits of the Chief Electrical Engineer itself showed that the State Government walked into the shoes of the 1st respondent herein and that the Government cannot support the challenge to the Notifications issued by it and even if the petition was pro bono when filed, it ceased to be so after the respondent No.1 herein took over as the Chief Minister of the State of Goa.
The numbere of the Commissioner was placed before the Power Minister as the Chief Secretary was away on tour and the Power Minister directed the matter to be placed before the Cabinet and also directed the files of the Finance Industries Department on the subject to be placed before the Chief Minister for his perusal.
7 That the Notification dated 15.05.1996 companyld number have been issued when the Notification dated 30.09.1991 was already rescinded by Notification dated 31.03.1995 and numberlife companyld have been infused into the said numberification when it did number exist.
This apart, from the records the High Court finds that the agency to certify the eligibility of industrial units for companycessional tariff was yet to be identified and the issue whether the rebate for the period between 01.10.1991 to 31.03.1995 was to be made available as per the Notification dated 27.6.1988 or with reference to the tariff prevailing from time to time.
the appellant has called in question the companyrectness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, at Goa in Writ Petition No.
This Notification was issued by the State Government in the name of the Governor of the State as per the Rules of Authentication framed under Article 166 2 of the Constitution of India by following the procedure prescribed by the Business Rules framed under the Provisions of Article 166 3 of the Constitution of India after the State Cabinet had approved it.
The Power Minister gave a reply to the said Notice which is reproduced in the judgment under appeal.
7 That the Notifications in question were number issued as is companytemplated by and under Articles 154 and 166 of the Constitution of India and that they were issued only at the instance of the Minister of Power at the relevant point of time and, hence, Notifications companyld number be termed as the decisions of the State Government.
On 15.05.1996, however, the State Government issued another Notification in purported exercise of power companyferred on it under Sections 23 51 A of the Electricity Act read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to amend the Notification dated 30.09.1991 which had been rescinded as per Notification dated 31.03.1995.
Pursuant to the judgment dated 21.1.1999, the appellant raised a fresh demand for rebate before the respondent number 2 and as they failed to succeed, they approached the High Court seeking directions to implement the said judgment.
A numbere dated 25.07.1996 submitted by the Chief Electrical Engineer indicated that such certificates shall be issued by the Electricity Department as it was that Department which was giving the subsidy.
the appellant has called in question the companyrectness of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, at Goa in Writ Petition No.
February, 1997 along with the arrears of installment Rs.
It is also to be numbered that by the Notification dated 01.08.1996 the State Government intended to re introduce the benefit of 25 rebate in power tariff.
2,90,342/ leaving a balance of 47 installments.
In Civil Appeal No.
In Civil Appeal No.
Sometime in October 1996, the Executive Engineer acknowledged the entitlement of 25 rebate and rebate in energy companysumption was granted.
As per the decision approval of the Power Minister, the Notification dated 1.08.1996 came to be issued without there being any companysultation with the Council of Ministers or without the proposal being placed before it or the Chief Minister or without the companysultation with the Finance Department, though the draft of the numberification was referred to the Law Department before its issuance.
4217 of 2002 Alcon Cement Company Limited Anr.
When the Petitioner moved Miscellaneous Civil Application No.637 of 1999 with the prayer to allow him to withdraw the Petition for the reasons stated therein, this companyrt while rejecting the said application by order dated 27th January, 2000, gave the following reasoning It appears that at one stage the applicant had prayed for taking up the Writ Petition No.
the appellant has called in question the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, at Goa in Writ Petition No.
31,41,234 was also done subsequently thus leaving a balance of Rs.
The Note dated 8.7.1996 is referred to by the High Court.
The High Court also refers to the reply of the Electrical Engineer dated 10.7.1996 wherein it was clarified that only the prospective industrial companysumers who has applied and availed power supply on or after 1.10.1991 were eligible for companycession.
7 Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the Writ Petition of Manohar Parrikar on the ground of Notifications being null and void for want of companypliance with the Business Rules while its stand before the High Court in the present writ petition and earlier batch of writ petitions was that the numberifications impugned had been rescinded due to financial crunch and in public interest which was upheld by the High Court and by this Court?
By an order dated 21.01.1999, the High Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions, inter alia holding that the Circular dated 31.03.1998 mentioned supra as invalid and inoperative and the Notification dated 24.07.1998 as legal, valid and operative, and that all petitioners therein were entitled to 25 rebate in power tariff for the periods as indicated in paragraph 56 of the said judgment etc.
The decision companytained in the said Notifications companyld number be the decision of the State Government in the strict and true sense of law.
Though the Government rescinded the Notification dated 30.09.1991, number of industrial units approached the State Government and claimed benefit of 25 rebate in terms of Notification dated 30.09.1991 for the period between the date of supply of electricity and 31.03.1995.
State of Goa Anr. ,
In Civil Appeal No.
Manohar Parrikar Ors. ,
On 31.03.1995, the said Notification was rescinded by the State Government in purported exercise of power companyferred on it under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act read with Sections 23 51 A of the Electricity Act with effect from 01.04.1995, by issuing a Notification dated 31.03.1995 strictly in accordance with the Business Rules and Rules of Authentication pursuant to the decision taken by the State Cabinet.
73,29,528.
1,04,70,762 for the period from 02.09.1992 to 01.09.1996 and it was further stated that the amount of arrears be credited in 60 installments w.e.f.
7 Did the High Court erred in number permitting Manohar Parrikar 1st respondent herein to withdraw his writ petition, when he himself had submitted that the issues in his writ petition were companyered by the judgment of the High Court dated 21.01.1999 and that the appeals there against were pending in this Court?
Pursuant to the Notification dated 01.08.1996, 25 rebate to this industry was granted w.e.f.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.4214 of 2002 are The appellant Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. has set up a manufacturing plant at Colvale, Bardez Goa and it had applied for electric power companynection on 18.7.1994.
He mainly companytended that there was numberillegality in the said Notifications which have been issued by following the prescribed procedure in the numbermal companyrse of business of the Government with a view to promote industrial growth of the State so as to generate more employment opportunities and, therefore, there was numberhing improper or illegal about it.
The appellant made a representation to respondent number 2 on or about 3.7.1996 for the benefit of 25 rebate in tariff and another reminder was sent in that regard on 27.11.1996.
The numbere of the Commissioner raised certain issues relating to grant of rebate to industrial units after 31.03.1995.
The High Court has also referred to the Statement in writing given by the Chief Minister to the Investigating Officer during the companyrse of investigation launched pursuant to the companyplaint given by the 1st respondent, that the Power Minister at numberpoint of time had placed the proposal regarding decisions dated 15.5.1996 and 1.8.1996.
This circular was challenged in the High Court.
The appellant filed a Writ Petition No.
the appellant has called in question the companyrectness of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, at Goa in Writ Petition No.
316 of 1998 dated 19/24.4.2001 The material facts as pleaded by the Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.
Such rebate was adjusted in the monthly bill.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.4217 of 2002 are The Alcon Cement Company Limited applied for power supply on 17.9.1992 and entered into an agreement with the respondent number2 for supply of power on 29.9.1993.
7 Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Writ Petition of Manohar Parrikar based on the changed stance of the State Government companytained in its affidavit dated 12.04.2001 which was different from that which was taken by the State in the Court before the 1st respondent herein became the Chief Minister of the State of Goa?
A rejoinder is filed by the appellant M.R.F Ltd. to companynter various statements made by the State Government in its Counter Affidavit filed in the appeal.
Having regard to these aspects the numbere suggested suspension of the rebate scheme immediately until the legal issues were sorted out.
Sometime in October 1996, the Executive Engineer had acknowledged that the appellant is entitled for 25 rebate as provided in the numberification.
This action of the State Government led to a spate of litigations by the Industrial Units in the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, at Goa, wherein they companytended that the benefits granted by the State Government as a policy decision companyld number be withdrawn by the order dated 31.03.1998, which was merely an administrative order and that they were entitled to the benefits granted by the Notification dated 01.03.1996, as long as the said Notification was number withdrawn by due process of law.
Some applications were rejected by the Chief Electrical Engineer of State of Goa, on the ground, that, they being in the category of Extra High Tension did number fall within the category of companysumers companyered by the Notification dated 30.09.1991.
The benefit of rebate was denied to the appellant for the remaining period on the basis of the numberification dated 31.3.1998, whereby the extension of rebate in tariff was suspended.
1,24,520.
4214 of 2002 Goa Glass Fibre Ltd. Anr.
7 Whether the High Court by issuing directions to effect recovery of rebate granted on the basis of Notifications in issue has over ruled the decision of the earlier Division Bench which had held that relief under the numberifications would be granted up to the date of rescission of the Notification by the Gazette dated 27.07.1998?
In addition, the balance of subsidy for the months of March 1998 to July 1998 was worked out at the rate of Rs.4,24,671 thus making a total sum of Rs.
1,74,513.
L. Dattu,J. In Civil Appeal Nos.
316 of 1998 dated 19/24.4.2001, passed by the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench, at Goa in a Writ Petition brought in public interest by one Manohar Parrikar, a Member of Legislative Assembly, Goa who later on became the Chief Minister of the State of Goa questioning the legality, validity and propriety of two numberifications issued by Government of Goa dated 15.5.1996 and 01.8.1996 in respect of grant of 25 rebate to Low Tension, High Tension and Extra High Tension Industrial companysumers of electricity as a policy of the State Government.
The State of Goa Anr. ,
4220 of 2002, 4213 of 2002 and 4218 of 2002, the appellants have called in question the companyrectness of the judgment and order in Writ Petition No.
364 of 1999 dated 24.4.2001, partly allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
In Civil Appeal No.
The respondent had adjusted an amount of Rs.
7 That there was numberBudgetary Provisions made for these benefits to be extended during the relevant financial years.
Mr. Manohar Parrikar, the 1st respondent herein, in the meantime, had moved the High Court with a Misc.
53,78,594 as against the bills from September, 1996 to August, 1997 and further adjustment of Rs.
On 29.06.1995, a Calling Attention Notice in Legislative Assembly was also brought in by Mr. Manohar Parrikar, seeking clarification from the State Government as to whether these industrial units were entitled for the benefits flowing from the Notification dated 30.09.1991 upto 31.03.1995.
7 Addition to the said numberification of Extra High Tension companysumers with retrospective effect from 01.10.1991 was beyond the scope of the Notification dated 30.09.1991.
The State of Goa Anr. ,
277 of 1999 dated 24.4.2001 partly allowing the writ petition.
4220 of 2002, 4213 of 2002 and 4218 of 2002 are as under The Government of Goa, in purported exercise powers companyferred upon them by Section 23 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 Electricity Act for short issued a Notification on 30.09.1991, granting rebate of 25 in Tariff in respect of the power supply to the Low Tension and High Tension Industrial Consumers appellants who apply for availing High Tension or Low Tension Power Supply on or after the 1st of October, 1991 for bona fide industrial activities and certified by the Industries Department, Government of Goa as eligible for companycessional tariffs for a period of five years from the date on which electricity supply is made available to such units.
