Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs M/S. Suprabhat Steel Limited & Ors., ... on 17 November, 1998
4. Possibly, in the light of the pronouncement in that behalf in State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd., 1999 (1) SCC 31 referred to above, the Industrial Policy, 2001 announced by the State of Jharkhand contained in a clause as Clause 37.1. The said clause read, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing paragraph of the Industrial Policy, the State Government by issuance of notification in the official Gazette may amend or withdraw any of the provisions and/or schemes mentioned herein above." In the light of this, once a notification is issued pursuant to the Industrial Policy, 2001, how far the Court would be justified in relying on the policy to enlarge the scope of the notification or to find in not enforceable is different question. For the purpose of this case, we do not think it necessary to go into that question. According to us, in view of the statutory scheme of the Electricity Supply Act, it is necessary for the State Government to Issue a direction on the Policy in terms of Section 78A of the Act. To go against a particular provision in the Tariff adopted by the Board may amount to a policy decision by the Government, but that decision may have to be given effect to by way of a direction under Section 78A of the Supply Act so as to enable the Board to implement the same or to compel the Board to implement the same. Here, after the notification of the Industrial Policy, 2001, specified directions had been given by the State Government to the Electricity Board on 13.6.2002 followed by the other on 29.8.2002 by Board relating to the grant of concessions for supply of power. By that direction, the State Government did not direct the Board to receive the security by way of National Savings Certificates or Fixed Deposit. On the other hand, in the matter of inviting tenders, it was directed that the security may be taken by way of a National Savings Certificates or Fixed Deposit. After all, the Industrial Policy relied on only generally states that the Electricity Board will accept National Savings Certificates/Fixed Deposits against the security money. It was open to the Government to clarify that position in terms of Clause 37 of the Industrial Policy itself and the direction Issued under Section 78A of the Supply Act subsequent to the Policy could well be understood as a clarification of Clause 15.2.13 of the Industrial Policy and even going by Clause 37.1 of the Industrial Policy, the said direction had to prevail.
Hotel Venus International vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 8 July, 1997
In support of the contention that the industrial policy would prevail even over a notification In that behalf, the counsel placed strong reliance on State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd., 1999 (11 SCC 31 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hotel Venus International Khammam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 AP 78.
1