This application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for grant of power subsidy to the petitioner under 1982 Scheme of the Govt. of Assam. The specific prayers in the writ application are for a direction to the respondents to grant incentive to the petitioner company under 1982 Scheme as promised including the power subsidy and raise electricity bills on the petitioner at the subsidised rate of tariff @ 0.30 paise per unit as per the 1982 Scheme and with a further prayer to adjust the excess payment already made to the Assam State Electricity Board. 2. In 1982 the Govt. of Assam, Industry Department published a scheme granting various incentives to new unit establishing new industries within the State of Assam. It is stated that the scheme was prepared and published by the State Govt. with the participation, approval and concurrence of the Assam State Electricity Board. 1982 Scheme was first valid upto 31.3.85 but by the resolution dated 11th June, 1985 it was extended for a further period of 5 (five) years with effect from 1.4.85 to 31.3.90. The scheme inter alia is as follows : "Power subsidy: (a) New units in the large and medium scale will be charged power tariff @ 30 p. per unit for the first three years of commercial production. (b) In case of new small units power tariff will be @ 30 p. per unit for the first three years of commercial production" 3. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that acting upon the representation of the Govt of Assam, the petitioner No.1 proposed to establish a Mini Steel Plant for production of MS Ingots, Steel castings etc. in Assam. The petitioner was duly registered and eligible certificate etc. was also issued. But it is stated that instead of giving the subsidy to the petitioner, the petitioner was charged by the State Electricity Board at the normal rate of Rs. 1 instead of promised subsidy rate i.e. 30 paise per unit. The petitioner made representation from time to time but nothing was done. Hence, this writ application. 4. On 22.6.89,1.8.89 and 3 3.8.90 the following interim orders were passed by this Court. These are quoted below: "22.6.89 : The petitioner in this case assert to have paid excess of Rs. 16,61,276.38 to the Assam State Electricity Board. The petitioner made representation from time to time but nothing was done. Hence, this writ application. 4. On 22.6.89,1.8.89 and 3 3.8.90 the following interim orders were passed by this Court. These are quoted below: "22.6.89 : The petitioner in this case assert to have paid excess of Rs. 16,61,276.38 to the Assam State Electricity Board. To verify whether such an enormous amount was paid in excess the Assam State Electricity Board allowed this Court to conclude prima facie against their interest as no counsel is there to represent the interest of the Bar. After filing the writ petition a bill for Rs. 1,38,118/-. is now demanded from the petitioner. The petitioner now prays stay of the collection of that amount. There is none to represent the case of the Board today. In another case due to none appearance order passed by this Court is sent to the two authorities referred in the following para. This order also be sent to the Chief Secretary, Govt of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati in view of section 76 A of Act 54 of 1946 and to Chairman, Assam State Electricity Board. Since excess amount of Rs. 16,61,276.3 8 is alleged to have been paid by the petitioner, the amount of Rs. 1,3 8,118/- may not be collected from the petitioner till further orders. 1.8.89: In the order passed on June 22nd, 1989 the figures 16,61,276.38 it is represented is a mistake for Rs. 15,90,242.42. It is also represented by the petitioner that an additional sum of Rs.68,300/- has been demanded by the Electricity Board in Bill dated July 15,1989 under BK No.K92 serial No.9. That amount may not be collected from the petitioner until further order in view of excess deposit of Rs. 15,46,287.94 by the petitioner. 13.8.90 : Heard learned senior counsel Mr. JP Bhattacharjee on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel Mr. NN Saikia, on behalf of the State Electricity Board. Purused the contents and prayer in the petition dated 3.8.90 of the petitioner. Mr. Bhattacharjee submits for an order similar to die order dated 22.6.89 and 1.8.89 in respect of the bills dated 25.7.90 demanding Rs.4,55,654.70. The petitioner claim that they are liable to be charged 0.30 paise per unit, whereas the bills submitted charging @ Rs.l/- per unit. Whether per unit charge will be 0.30 paise or Rs.1/- is sub-judice. Perused our previous orders dated 22.6.89 and 1.8.89. The petitioner claim that they are liable to be charged 0.30 paise per unit, whereas the bills submitted charging @ Rs.l/- per unit. Whether per unit charge will be 0.30 paise or Rs.1/- is sub-judice. Perused our previous orders dated 22.6.89 and 1.8.89. The State Electricity Board in the present bill has shown the deduction of alleged excess payment of Rs. 16,20,084.90 and further claimed Rs.4,66,654.70. All these claims are @ Rs. 1/-per unit Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that the entire excess payment had yet to be adjusted with regular bill by calculating all back consumption at 0.30 paise per unit. Keeping in view of our previous orders, it is ordered that the amount claimed in the bill dated 25.7.90 shall not be collected from the petitioner until further orders from this Court." 5. The matter is no longer integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No.5000/94 Assam State Electricity Board vs. M/s Brahmaputra Steels (Pvt) Ltd. wherein the Apex Court directed inter alia as follows: (i) The industry is under a contractual as well as statutory obligation to pay the charges to the Board in respect of electricity consumed. (ii) The High Court fell into patent error in linking the grant of subsidy with payment of electricity charges. (iii) Neither the contents of the interim orders granted by the High Court nor the concept of legitimate expectation of the industry to get subsidy can be validly made the grounds for linking the payment of electricity charges/surcharges with receipt of subsidy under the policy. (iv) So far as the High Court direction to the State Govt. to pay the subsidy in terms of the policy to the industry, we find no fault with the same and we uphold that part of the judgment. (v) It would, therefore, be in the interest of justice mat no prejudice in the shape of payment of surcharge be permitted to be caused to the industry from March 31,1993 till April 4,1994. We, therefore direct the Electricity Board not to levy any surcharge for the period from March 31,1993 to April 4,1994. (vi) We give three weeks to the respondents/industry to pay the total arrears of electricity charges including the surcharge due. 6. The facts of that particular case are similar with the present case. We, therefore direct the Electricity Board not to levy any surcharge for the period from March 31,1993 to April 4,1994. (vi) We give three weeks to the respondents/industry to pay the total arrears of electricity charges including the surcharge due. 6. The facts of that particular case are similar with the present case. No affidavit-in-opposition was filed in this case but at the instance of this Court on behalf of Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., a written instruction was sent to this Court on 26.5.95 wherein it was stated that the industry is eligible to avail the incentives under the scheme upto 31.3.5ft). 7. I have heard Shri DN Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the ASEB and Dr. BP Todi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6. After hearing learned counsel of both the parties I dispose of this writ application in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court as follows: (i) I grant time for a month to the industry to pay the total arrears of electricity charges including the surcharges due. The surcharge shall not be charged till 31.3.90, the date to which the industry is entitled to the incentives. (ii) The State of Assam shall pay the balance of the subsidy due till 31.3.90 within three months from the date of receipt of this order. (iii) But is made clear that this payment of the electricity charges by the petitioner industry shall not be linked to the payment of subsidy as indicated above in the judgment of the Apex Court. (iv) The ASEB shall be entitled to submit necessary bill for all these period within 15 days from today and on submission of such bill the payment shall be made. 8. This disposes of the writ application. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.