Supreme Court Upholds Production Date Requirement, Grants Equitable Relief

The Supreme Court upheld the Industrial Policy's requirement of production within specified dates but considered the delay caused by the Electricity Board. Finding evidence supporting the respondent's readiness and the Board's delay, the Court granted a reduced period of concessional tariff as equitable relief. The Court rejected the review petition, emphasizing it cannot re-appreciate evidence without an error apparent on record, finding none. The judgment was based on a thorough analysis of policy and evidence, dismissing the review petition for lacking merit.

---

---

Issues:
Review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India seeking review of a judgment setting aside the benefit of concessional tariff under the Industrial Policy for a respondent who did not commence commercial production before the specified date.

Analysis:
The case involved a respondent claiming benefit under the Industrial Policy of Kerala for concessional tariff and electricity duty for new industries starting production between 1.1.1992 to 31.12.1996. The respondent, despite applying in time, did not receive electrical energy from the Kerala State Electricity Board until October 22, 1998. The High Court and the Division Bench held that the delay in production was not solely due to the fault of the Electricity Board, denying the benefit. The Supreme Court upheld the Industrial Policy's requirement of production between the specified dates but considered whether the delay was caused by the Electricity Board. The Court found evidence supporting the respondent's readiness for production and the Board's delay in providing power, leading to a judgment granting the respondent a reduced period of concessional tariff as equitable relief.

The Electricity Board argued that the respondent did not fulfill the conditions precedent for benefit under the Industrial Policy, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting readiness for power connection before the specified date. The respondent contended that the delay was due to the Electricity Board's inaction, justifying the Court's equitable relief. The Court found that the respondent was denied power supply in time by the Board, preventing production by the specified date. The Court's review concluded that the respondent's readiness and the Board's delay were supported by the evidence, leading to the rejection of the review petition.

In the review, the Court emphasized that it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court found no such error and rejected the argument that the judgment was based on a concession by the Electricity Board's counsel. The Court maintained that the judgment was based on a thorough analysis of the policy and evidence, dismissing the review petition for lacking merit.

---