U. L. BHAT, C. J. ( 1 ) FIRST petitioner, a private limited company, having a solvent extraction plant and consuming electricity for the plant over which electricity duty is payable under the M. P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (for short the Act), has filed this writ petition challenging the vires of the note to the definition of 'factory' in item 2 (c) of the Table providing for rates of duty under the Acts as introduced by M. P. Amendment Act 46 of 1984 and seeking direction for refund of higher duty recovered illegally from the petitioners. Return has been filed on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) SECTION 3 of the Act requires payment every month to the State Government duty calculated at the rates specified in the Table appended to the provision on the units of electrical energy supplied to consumers. Different rates have been prescribed for electrical energy sold or supplied for consumption in different kinds of purposes or premises consumption for business, trade or commerce purposes or for purposes of professional persuits other than for flour mills, for flour mills, in premises of the factory, for purposes of illumination, for consumption in township or colony attached to the factory etc. are the different classifications. Even originally concessional rate of duty was applicable for supply or consumption in premises of factory as depending on the strength of the connected load. The Act was amended by Act Nos. 21/75, 21/78, 46/84, 15/ 85. ( 3 ) AS the Act originally stood, Explanation C to Section 3 of the Act defines 'factory' thus : " 'factory' means a factory registered under the Factories Act 1948 (No. 63 of 948 ). " m. P. Factories Rules 1962 have been framed under the Factories Act, 1948. Rule 4 requires that no manufacturing process shall be carried on in any factory unless such factory is or is deemed to be duly licensed in accordance with Rules. Rule 6 requires that not less than 15 days before the occupier begins to use any premises as a factory he shall make to the Chief Inspector an application for registration and grant of licence along with notice of occupation in Form No. 4, in duplicate along with the treasury challan as a proof of payment of amount of fee specified in the Schedule. Rule 7 deals with the renewal of licence, Rule 9 deals with the amendment of licence and Rule 10 deals with transfer of licence. Rule 8 states that upon submission of an application under Rule 6, 7, 9 or 10 the premises in respect of which such applicable is made shall be deemed to be duly licensed, until the Chief Inspector has passed an order either granting or refusing to grant or renewal or amendment or transfer of the licence. The combined operation of the definition of 'factory' with Rule 8 of the Rules was that concessional rate of duty for consumption in a factory was applicable on the date of application for registration of licence whatever be the ultimate fate of the application and whatever be the actual date of issue of licence. This was held so in M. P. No. 308 of 1980. It appears, meanwhile, the Central Government withdrew the electricity duty causing loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. ( 4 ) IN the above circumstances, the M. P. Electricity Duty (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1984 was enacted. The statement of objects and reasons states thus :" (1) The Central Government has withdrawn the excise duty on electricity with effect from 1-10-1984. This has resulted in loss of revenue to the State exchequer. To, recoup partially this loss certain amendments in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 had become necessary. (2) The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 is silent as to when the registration of the factories under the Factories Act, 1948 shall be effective for the purposes of this said Act. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Petition (No. 308 of 1980) Municipal Corporation Jabalpur v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and State Government has held that the registration of factories as aforesaid with retrospective effect is not invalid for the purposes of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949. This has affected number of cases and is likely to give rise to claim of refund of tax to the extent of Rs. 121 lacs. Opportunity has, therefore, been given to remove the ambiguity, with retrospective effect from 1-10-1978 and to validate the action taken in such cases. (3) As the matter was urgent and the Vidhan Sabha was not in Session, the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1984 (No. 25 of 1984) was promulagated for the purposes. 121 lacs. Opportunity has, therefore, been given to remove the ambiguity, with retrospective effect from 1-10-1978 and to validate the action taken in such cases. (3) As the matter was urgent and the Vidhan Sabha was not in Session, the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1984 (No. 25 of 1984) was promulagated for the purposes. It is now proposed to replace the said Ordinance by an Act of the State Legislature. (4) Hence this Bill. "by the Amendment Act, the following note was added below the definition of 'factory' in Explanation (c) to Sec. 3 of the Act: "note- For the purpose of this section the date of issue of the Factory licence or the date of commencement of production as certified by the Director of Industries or his authorised representative, whichever is later, shall be deemed to be the date from which Factory is registered. " ( 5 ) THE effect of the amendment is that the date of application for registration of licence is not to be treated as the date on which the factory was registered; that the date of issue of the licence or the date of commencement of production as certified by the Director of Industries, whichever is later, should be regarded as the date from which the factory is registered. By this note, the date of registration has been pushed to a date later than the date of application, there by depriving the consumer of the benefit of concession of duty. Section 5 of the Amendment Act validates electricity duty imposed and recovered or purported to have been imposed or recovered in pursuance of the original provisions as in clause (c) of the Explanation of Sec. 3 of the Principal Act as amended by the Amendment Act was in force for all material times when such duty was imposed or recovered. In the present case, the date of application was 1-12-1984, date of commencement of production was 31-3-1985 and date of issuance of licence was 4-2-1986. Under the unamended provisions of the Act, the petitioners would be entitled to concessional rate of duty with effect from 1-12-1984. On account of the provisions of the Amendment Act, the concessional rate would be available to the petitioners only with effect from 5-2-1986. Under the unamended provisions of the Act, the petitioners would be entitled to concessional rate of duty with effect from 1-12-1984. On account of the provisions of the Amendment Act, the concessional rate would be available to the petitioners only with effect from 5-2-1986. ( 6 ) THE contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that issue of licences is a ministerial Act and going by the deeming provision in the V. P. Factories Rules, the date of registration is deemed to be the date of application and this position is sought to be altered by the provisions of the Amendment Act, 1984. It is further contended that the date of issue of licence or the date of commencement of production has no relevance to the date from which concessional rate of duty should be applied and the provision is arbitrary. We are unable to agree with this submission. The deeming provision in the Factories Rules is only for purposes of implementation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. The provisions safeguarded the interest of the applicants the disposal of those applications has been unduly or unnecessarily delayed and meanwhile trial production may have to be carried on. Such activity might be contrary to law in the absence of registration of licence. No such consideration need arise when chosing the date from which the rate of duty is to be applied. The date of issue of licence or the date of commencement of production are also dates which are relevant. As observed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mss: Parameswaran Match Works etc. , AIR 1974 SC 2349 . The choice of a date as the basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off any reasonable mark. When it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off any reasonable mark. As we have indicated, the declaration contained in the note that the date of issue of factory licence or the date of commencement of production, whichever is later, has relevance to the supply of electricity and the applicability of the rate of duty. The provision in the note cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate fee Rs. 500/ -. Petition dismissed. .