Welfare incentive scheme interpretation: cyclone damage did not amount to breach, and writ relief remained available despite an alternative remedy.

A welfare-oriented wind power incentive scheme was construed to protect bona fide beneficiaries, so clause 7(f) was read as targeting deliberate or negligent discontinuance of generation and not loss caused by a cyclone. Because the windmills and transmission lines were destroyed by vis major, the beneficiary could not be penalised for impossibility beyond its control, and withdrawal of the sales tax incentive was unjustified. The court also held that an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the recovery and attachment action had immediate coercive effect and the dispute turned on interpretation of the State policy. The impugned recovery and attachment orders were therefore unsustainable, and the incentive benefit was retained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether discontinuance of wind power generation caused by a devastating cyclone amounted to breach of clause 7(f) of the Government Resolution dated June 13, 1994 so as to justify withdrawal of the sales tax incentive. (ii) Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether discontinuance of wind power generation caused by a devastating cyclone amounted to breach of clause 7(f) of the Government Resolution dated June 13, 1994 so as to justify withdrawal of the sales tax incentive.

Analysis: The incentive scheme was treated as a beneficial policy intended to encourage generation of electricity through wind farms. Clause 7(f) was read as targeting deliberate or voluntary discontinuance of generation, or stoppage caused by gross negligence, and not a situation where performance became impossible because of circumstances beyond the control of the beneficiary. The destruction of the windmills and transmission lines by a cyclone was treated as vis major and an act of God. The principle that law does not compel impossibilities was applied, and it was held that a beneficiary acting bona fide could not be penalised for non-compliance caused by natural calamity.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not in breach of clause 7(f), and withdrawal of the sales tax incentive was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy barred exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The pending appeal under the sales tax law was not treated as an absolute bar because the impugned attachment and recovery action had immediate coercive effect, the dispute involved interpretation of a State policy, and the petitioner had been left without effective relief before the statutory forum in the circumstances of the case. The availability of an alternative remedy was therefore held not to preclude writ intervention.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned recovery and attachment orders were held unsustainable, and the petitioner retained the benefit of the incentive scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A beneficiary of a welfare-oriented incentive scheme cannot be denied the granted benefit for non-fulfilment caused by vis major or an act of God, where the scheme is aimed at preventing deliberate discontinuance and the default is neither voluntary nor negligent.

---