Judgment :- K. GOVINDARAJAN, J. The Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. and its workers sangam and union have filed the above writ petitions challenging the order of the Government passed in G.O. Ms. No. 190, Energy (A2) Department, dated December 11, 1997, and also to forbear the respondents in W.P. No. 19331 of 1997 and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 151 of 1998 from collecting the normal high tension tariff with effect from April 28, 1996. Since the facts and the averments made are common, I am inclined to deal with the above writ petitions in common. The petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium at its factory situated at Mettur, Tamil Nadu State. According to the petitioner-company, manufacture of aluminium is power intensive and power charges constitute nearly 40 per cent. of the cost of production of aluminium. Though the said company commenced production in 1965, subsequently the company was declared a sick industrial company in terms of section 3(1)(0) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act"), by the BIFR in the order dated September 8, 1987. A claim for rehabilitation was sanctioned by the BIFR to revive the petitioner-company by its order dated January 3, 1989. Subsequently, the BIFR found that the scheme of rehabilitation failed and so it issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner-company to show cause as to why the petitioner-company should not be wound up, and the same was published on June 5, 1991. The petitioner-company seems to have approached this court by filing the writ petition in W.P. No. 4495 of 1991. This court directed the BIFR to consider the revival scheme of rehabilitation as envisaged by the promoter. Pending the abovesaid writ petition, the petitioner-company made representations to the Government of Tamil Nadu to extend the concessions/reliefs so as to enable the petitioner to revive the company. The Government after careful consideration of the matter and to avoid unemployment of the workers issued an order in G.O. Ms. No. 165, Industries Department, dated April 28, 1992, in which the Government granted the following concessions/reliefs for the revival of the petitioner-company with the hope that the concessions and reliefs offered for the following institutions also, will make the units viable : "(i) Arrears of electricity charges for the period from November 18, 1988, to February 28, 1991, amounting to Rs. 9.93 crores payable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall be paid by Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. in equal monthly instalments without interest in four years after one year of moratorium from the date of reopening; (ii) Towards the arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 15.85 crores payable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for the period from October 1, 1984, to November 17, 1988, the amounts available in the aluminium regulation account shall be drawn and paid immediately and the balance of arrears shall be repaid in instalments in due course, the mode of which will be decided during the fifth year of operations. The Department of Mines, Government of India, shall be consulted for release of the amount in the aluminium regulation account for adjustment of the electricity arrear. These arrears also shall not bear any interest; (iii) Madras Aluminium Company Limited shall be allowed to pay electricity tariff at a concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH (including electricity tax) for a period of four years. This concessional rate is applicable considering the high energy use as input in the manufacture of aluminium. After four years the company should pay the normal H.T. tariff rate; (iv) The current consumption charges from April, 1991, onwards shall be based on the actual recorded consumption and the future bills shall be adjusted accordingly; (v) Madras Aluminium Company Limited shall be allowed S.T. deferral for a period of five years from the date of reopening of the unit. The first year tax shall be paid during the sixth day along with the current S.T. dues for that year, the second year deferred tax shall be paid during the seventh year in addition to the tax due for the seventh year and so on." In spite of the said concessions offered by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the management of the company could not revive the company and so the BIFR passed the order dated December 28, 1993, directing the IDBI as the operating agency to explore alternative measures including change of management as stipulated under section 18 of the Act for revival of the petitioner-company. Pursuant to the direction, the IDBI issued a notification dated January 22, 1994, inviting offers for merger/take over of the petitioner-sick unit. Pursuant to the direction, the IDBI issued a notification dated January 22, 1994, inviting offers for merger/take over of the petitioner-sick unit. But, unfortunately, no person has come forward to take over the petitioner-company and ultimately the BIFR issued a show-cause notice dated May 10, 1994, for winding up the petitioner-company, At that stage, Agarwal and Associates of Sterlite Group of Industries offered to take over the petitioner-company and undertook as co-promoters. The BIFR took note of the offer made by them and by an order dated October 23, 1994, circulated a draft scheme for rehabilitation. The Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board by the letter dated December 21, 1994, agreed in the course of the enquiry to grant reliefs/concessions in addition to the various concessions already afforded in and by the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 165, Industries Department, dated April 23, 1992. On the basis of the said commitments made by the said company and the Electricity Board, they sanctioned three schemes of rehabilitation. In addition to the concessions indicated in G.O. Ms. No. 165, Industries Department, dated April 28, 1992, which have been extracted above, further concessions were given, which are as follows : (a) The current dues of electricity charges up to the date of reopening to be paid in 42 equal instalments commencing from 1996-97 and up to 1999-2000 including the arrears;(b) no additional security deposit for power supply in respect of future tariff; (c) release of uninterrupted power supply up to 47 MVA to be ensured by the third respondent/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In addition to the abovesaid assurance, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order in G.O. Ms. No. 37, Industries Department dated February 10, 1995, sanctioned the abovesaid release. In the said Government order, the concessions/reliefs granted to the petitioner-company in G.O. Ms. No. 165, Industries Department, dated April 28, 1992, also have been extracted. According to the petitioner-company, it resumed production on February 21, 1995, and has been availing of the concessions given by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in terms of the order of the BIFR dated December 23, 1994, and G.O. Ms. No. 37, dated February 10, 1995. But the second respondent has withdrawn the concessions extended, vide the said Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 37, dated February 10, 1995, by issuing G.O. Ms. No. 37, dated February 10, 1995. But the second respondent has withdrawn the concessions extended, vide the said Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 37, dated February 10, 1995, by issuing G.O. Ms. No. 190, dated December 11, 1997, whereby the concession regarding power tariff at the rate of Re. 1 per KWH was offered to the petitioner-company. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner-company and its labour union have filed the above writ petitions. The second respondent-Government filed a counter adopting the counter filed by the third respondent-Electricity Board. The third respondent filed a detailed counter. In the counter it is not disputed about the granting of concession to the petitioner-company as alleged in the affidavit. But it is stated that on account of extending concession to the petitioner-company the Electricity Board has suffered a loss and it had always been witnessing a deficit in the revenue gap. On that basis a discussion was made and as a result of discussion, the Electricity Board approved the proposal to withdraw the concession to the industries falling under H.T. Tariff I and H.T. Tariff VII. After the proposal for revision of tariff was approved by the Board, the State Government was addressed by the Board by the middle of December, 1996, to review the tariff since the board was losing revenue to the extent of Rs. 170 crores per annum on account of the concession enjoyed by the H.T. supply industries. According to the Electricity Board, in view of the concession extended to the petitioner-company the financial sacrifice of the Board is to the extent of Rs. 332 crores. Therefore, the Board requested the Government to reimburse the loss of revenue suffered by the Board. The Government by their letter dated September 8, 1997, informed the Board that it is not possible to reimburse the loss of revenue to the Board. In the said circumstances, the Government passed the impugned order, since by that time the BIFR had also, on a consideration of the annual report of the petitioner-company ending with March 31, 1997, found an improvement in the performance of the company and the company had also turned positive and consequently by order dated September 10, 1997, declared that the petitioner-company had ceased to be a sick industry within the meaning of section 3(1)(0) of the Act. According to the respondent-Electricity Board, the petitioner-company had ceased to be a sick industry, and it cannot be shown preferential treatment as per the Electricity Supply Act, as the privilege conferred upon the petitioner-company is subject to certain conditions.The petitioner-company has filed a reply to the said counter. In the reply, it is explained, under what circumstances, the BIFR has passed the order dated September 10, 1997, and the same has been stated by the petitioner-company. R. Krishnamurthi, learned counsel appealing for the petitioners, has submitted that under the impugned Government order dated December 11, 1997, the Government has withdrawn the concession given to the petitioner-company to pay the electricity tariff at the concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH (including electricity tax) on certain misconception. The learned senior counsel has pointed out that even as on date the other concessions extended to the petitioner-company are in force. Only with respect to the payment of electricity tariff at the concessional tariff at the rate of Re. 1 it has been stopped under the impugned Government order. According to him, even the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has understood that the concessional electricity tariff starts from the date of reopening of the industry, i.e., starting of production. According to the petitioner-company, it has started production from February 21, 1995. So, the said period of four years, according to the learned senior counsel, would start only from February 21, 1995, and not from the date of the Government order. On a perusal of the said scheme and the annexures thereto, it will be clearly established that the Government and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board have understood the period of four years only from the date of production. The learned senior counsel pointing out the reasons mentioned in the Government order for giving concessions, has submitted that if the reasons mentioned in the impugned order to withdraw the concessions are taken as correct, then there is no purpose in giving concessions at all while the factory was not functioning. It is his further submission that the draft scheme has been accepted by the Government which includes annexures. He has also pointed out that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner-company was not given any opportunity as it involves civil consequences. It is his further submission that the draft scheme has been accepted by the Government which includes annexures. He has also pointed out that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner-company was not given any opportunity as it involves civil consequences. While referring to the reasons given in the counter for passing the impugned order, the learned senior counsel has submitted that no fresh reasons can be given in the counter to sustain the impugned order, as laid down by the Supreme Court in 1978 AIR(SC) 857 (sic). The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondents cannot take advantage of the order passed by the BIFR, dated September 10, 1997, as the petitioner-company is enjoying other benefits given by the Government and the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, irrespective of the said order of the BIFR.N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No. 151 of 1998, has submitted that taking into consideration the position of the petitioner-company, the labourers have agreed to freezing of wages for a period of three years at pre-closure level. When the labourers themselves have come forward with such a proposal, the Government should not withdraw the concessions already given, which would make the petitioner-company again sick and so the impugned order cannot be sustained. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has submitted that though the impugned order cannot be given effect to retrospectively with effect from April 28, 1996, it would come into force from the date of the order passed by the BIFR, dated September 10, 1997. According to him, in view of clause 3 of the said schemes framed by the BIFR, the four years period mentioned in the said Government order dated April 28, 1992, with respect to the impugned concession would start from September 30, 1994. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that when the petitioner-company is able to earn profit, it cannot insist upon concessions at the cost of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which is incurring heavy loss by granting such concessions. Now, we are concerned only with the concession granted by the Government for a period of four years, which has later been withdrawn by the impugned order. Now, we are concerned only with the concession granted by the Government for a period of four years, which has later been withdrawn by the impugned order. Before going into the dispute between the parties, it is beneficial to extract the relevant Government orders, which run as follows : "ABSTRACT Industrial-Madras Aluminium Company Limited-Sick unit-Package of reliefs-Orders-Issued. INDUSTRIES (MIG. I DEPARTMENT) G.O. Ms. No. 165 Dated 28-4-92. 1. G.O. Ms. No. 1076 Industries, dated 4-10-88. 2. From M/s. The Madras Aluminium Company Limited letter dated 4-12-91. Order The Madras Aluminium Company Limited is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The company incurred heavy losses and finally it came under the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, in the year 1987. The company was registered with the BIFR as a sick unit. The Board issued a notice on June 5, 1991, asking the company to show cause as to why it should not be wound up. Against this notice, the company filed a writ petition before the High Court, Madras, in July, 1991, and obtained stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the notice issued by the BIFR. 2. The Madras Aluminium Company Limited has represented to the Government seeking certain reliefs and concessions for the revival of the company. The Government have carefully examined the various requests made by the company. Considering the interests of a large number of workers who will face unemployment if the company is wound up and with a view to revive the only aluminium manufacturing unit in the State, the Government have decided to grant the following concessions/reliefs for the revival of Madras Aluminium Company Limited : (i) Arrears of electricity charges for the period from November 18, 1988 to February 28, 1991, amounting to Rs. 9.95 crores payable to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall be paid by Madras Aluminium Company Limited in equal monthly instalments without interest in four years after one year of moratorium from the date of reopening; (ii) Towards the arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 9.95 crores payable to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall be paid by Madras Aluminium Company Limited in equal monthly instalments without interest in four years after one year of moratorium from the date of reopening; (ii) Towards the arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 15.85 crores payable to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for the period from October 1, 1984 to November 17, 1988, the amounts available in the Aluminium Regulation Account shall be drawn and paid immediately and the balance of arrears shall be repaid in instalments in due course, the mode of which will be decided during the fifth year of operations. The Department of Mines, Government of India, shall be consulted for release of the amount in Aluminium Regulation Account for adjustment of the electricity arrears. These arrears also shall not bear any interest;(iii) Madras Aluminium Company Limited shall be allowed to pay electricity tariff at a concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH (including electricity tax) for a period of four years. This concessional rate is applicable considering the high energy use as input in the manufacture of aluminium. After four years the company should pay the normal H.T. tariff rate; (iv) The current consumption charges from April, 1991, onwards shall be based on the actual recorded consumption and the future bills shall be adjusted accordingly; (v) Madras Aluminium Company Limited shall be allowed S.T. deferral for a period of five years from the date of reopening of the unit. The first year tax shall be paid during the sixth year along with the current S.T. dues for that year, the second year deferred tax shall be paid during the seventh year in addition to the tax due for the seventh year and soon. 3. The Government hope that with the above concessions and reliefs offered by the Government, the company would seek some reliefs from the financial institutions also to make the unit viable. The company should take early action to reopen the unit in a period of at least three months from the date of this order. 4. The Government in Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department will issue necessary notifications with reference to para. 2(v) above. 5. The company should take early action to reopen the unit in a period of at least three months from the date of this order. 4. The Government in Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department will issue necessary notifications with reference to para. 2(v) above. 5. This order issues with the concurrences of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments, Public Works Department and Finance Departments vide their U.O. No. 102/Secy/92-1, dated 23-4-92, U.O. No. 72/S, PWD/92-1, dated 23-4-92 and U.O. No. 2184/FS/P/92-1, dated 27-4-92, respectively. By Order of the Governor (Sd.) C. Ramachandran, Secretary to Government." Subsequently, on the basis of the notice issued by the BIFR, and also on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner-company, the Government passed the following Government order, in which the concessions given in the abovesaid Government order have also been extracted, which reads as follows : "GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ABSTRACT Industries Madras Aluminium Company Limited-Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Case No. 7 of 1989 (19 of 1987) - Further package of Relief-Orders-Issued. INDUSTRIES (MIG-I) DEPARTMENT G.O. Ms. No. 37 Dated 10-2-95. READ AGAIN 1. G.O. Ms. No. 165, Industries Department, dated 28-4-1992. 2. From the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Order dated 23-10-1994 in Case No. 19 of 1987. 3. Government Letter No. 36013/MIG-1/92-13 Industries Department, dated 21-12-1994. 4. From the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Order dated 23-12-1994 in Case No. 7 of 1989 (19 of 1987). Order The Madras Aluminium Company Limited is a public limited company incorporated under the India Companies Act, 1956. The company incurred heavy losses and finally in the year 1987 it came under the purview of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The company was registered with the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction as a sick unit. 2. The Madras Aluminium Company Limited represented to the Government seeking certain reliefs and concessions for the revival of the company. The Government carefully examined various requests made by the company. In the Government order first read above, the Government sanctioned the following concessions/relief for the revival of Madras Aluminium Company Limited : (i) Arrears of electricity charges for the period from November 18, 1988 to February 28, 1991, amounting to Rs. The Government carefully examined various requests made by the company. In the Government order first read above, the Government sanctioned the following concessions/relief for the revival of Madras Aluminium Company Limited : (i) Arrears of electricity charges for the period from November 18, 1988 to February 28, 1991, amounting to Rs. 9.93 crores payable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, shall be paid by Madras Aluminium Company Limited in equal monthly instalments without interest in four years after one year of moratorium from the date of reopening;(ii) Towards the arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 15.85 crores payable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, for the period from October 1, 1984, to November 17, 1988, the amounts available in the Aluminium Regulation Account shall be drawn and paid immediately and the balance of arrears shall be repaid in instalments in due course, the mode of which will be decided during the fifth year of operations. The Department of Mines, Government of India, shall be consulted for release of the account in Aluminium Regulation Account for adjustment of the electricity arrears. These arrears also shall not bear any interest; (iii) Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. shall be allowed to pay electricity tariff at a concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH (including electricity tax) for a period of four years. This concessional rate is applicable considering the high energy use as input in the manufacture of aluminium. After four years the company should pay the normal H.T. tariff rate; (iv) The current consumption charges from April, 1991, onwards shall be based on the actual recorded consumption and future bills shall be adjusted accordingly; (v) Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. shall be allowed sales tax deferral for a period of five years from the date of reopening of the unit. The first year tax shall be paid during the sixth year along with the current sales tax dues for that year, the second year deferred tax shall be paid during the seventh year in addition to the tax due for the seventh year and so on. 3. Therefore, the BIFR held a number of sittings but no revival package could be finalised. Subsequently Agarwal and Associates of Sterlite Group of Industries opted to become the co-promoters for Madras Aluminium Company Limited. In its hearing held on October 23, 1994, the BIFR approved a draft scheme of rehabilitation of the company. 3. Therefore, the BIFR held a number of sittings but no revival package could be finalised. Subsequently Agarwal and Associates of Sterlite Group of Industries opted to become the co-promoters for Madras Aluminium Company Limited. In its hearing held on October 23, 1994, the BIFR approved a draft scheme of rehabilitation of the company. The Government examined the above draft scheme and in the letter third read above, conveyed their approval for sanction the concession envisaged from the State Government. Accordingly, the BIFR, in its order fourth read above, has sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme for the revival of Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. In the above order, the BIFR has directed the State Government to sanction the following reliefs/concessions besides the reliefs already sanctioned in the Government order first read above :(i) The current dues of electricity charges to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board up to date of reopening to be repaid in four equal monthly instalments commencing from 1996-97 to 1999-2000, along with payment of arrears; (ii) No additional electricity deposit shall be required for future operations; and (iii) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall ensure release of uninterrupted power supply to the extent at least 47 MVA. 4. The Government have examined the above directions of the BIFR and direct that Madras Aluminium Company Limited be sanctioned the following reliefs : (i) The current dues of electricity charges to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board up to the date of reopening to be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments commencing from 1996-97 to 1999-2000 along with payment of arrears; (ii) No additional electricity deposit shall be required for the future operations; and (iii) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall ensure release of uninterrupted power supply to the extent of at least 47 MVA. These concessions are in addition to the concession mentioned in paragraph 1 above, which were already sanctioned in the Government order first read above. 5. This order issues with the concurrence of Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments, Energy and Finance Departments-vide their U.O. No. Secy./CT and HR/95, dated 8-2-95, Secy. Energy/5/95, dated B-2-95 and U.O. No. 618/F/P/95, dated 9-2-95, respectively. By Order of the Governor (Sd.) C. Ramachandran, Principal Secretary to Government." Taking into consideration the said Government orders, the BIFR sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme in Case No. 19 of 1987, dated December 23, 1994. Energy/5/95, dated B-2-95 and U.O. No. 618/F/P/95, dated 9-2-95, respectively. By Order of the Governor (Sd.) C. Ramachandran, Principal Secretary to Government." Taking into consideration the said Government orders, the BIFR sanctioned the rehabilitation scheme in Case No. 19 of 1987, dated December 23, 1994. The relevant portion of the said scheme, for the purpose of this case, is as follows : "D. Government of Tamil Nadu/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board : (i) The arrears of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 1, 585 lakhs payable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for the period from October 1, 1984 to November 17, 1988, shall be repaid in instalments the mode of which will be decided during the fifth year of operation. Arrears of electricity charges for the period from November 18, 1938 to February 28, 1991, amounting to Rs. 993 lakhs payable to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to be paid in equal monthly instalments without interest in four years after one year of moratorium from the date of reopening; (ii) electricity tariff at a concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH (including electricity tax) to be available for a period of four years; (iii) Current consumption charges from April, 1991, onwards to be based on the actual recorded consumption and the future bills shall be adjusted accordingly; (iv) ST/CST/Additional TNGST deferred for a period of five years from the date of reopening of the unit. The tax payable in the first year shall be paid in the sixth year along with the tax dues for that year : similarly the second year deferred tax shall be paid in the seventh year in addition to the tax due for the seventh year and so on; (v) The current dues of electricity charges to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board up to the date of reopening to be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments commencing from 1996-97 to 1999-2000 along with payment of arrear; (vi) No additional electricity deposit shall be required for future operations; and (vii) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board shall ensure release of uninterrupted power supply to the extent of at least 47 KVA." In clause 3 of the said scheme it is stated that the following reliefs and concessions are envisaged assuming cut-off date of September 30, 1994. In the clause mentioned as "viability" it is stated, that the consumptions underlying the profitability projections, profitability statements, cash flow, balance-sheet and other statements are enclosed as per annexures 1 to 5. The company would meet its liabilities with an average BIFR of 3-16 except payment of electricity dues and deferred sales tax dues. The net worth of the company would exceed its accumulated losses in 1996-97 while accumulated losses of the company would be wiped out in 1997-98. As stated in the abovesaid clause, the statements have been enclosed as annexures to the said scheme. The said annexures are also relevant for the purpose of considering the issue raised in these writ petitions.From the abovesaid pleadings, Government orders, the scheme and arguments, it is clear that the petitioner-company was allowed to pay the electricity tariff at the concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH (including tax) for a period of four years in the Government order in G.O. Ms. No. 165, Industries Department, dated April 28, 1992. The dispute now is only with respect to the starting date of the said period of four years which has not been mentioned therein, though with respect to other concessions mentioned therein, there is an indication about the starting point. The Government passed the impugned order only on December 11, 1997, though even according to the Government, the said period of four, years was over as early as on April 28, 1996. The above said fact would establish that the stand taken by the petitioner-company that the concessions given to the petitioner-company to enjoy the said concessions is for the period of four years from the date of production. Otherwise, the Government would have passed the order early. Moreover, the reason for granting such concessions to the petitioner-company as stated in the Government order dated April 28, 1992, is that, the necessity of a large number of workers who would face unemployment, if the petitioner-company is wound up, and, with a view to revive the only aluminium manufacturing unit in the State, the Government have decided to grant the said concessions. In this case, the payment of electricity tariff at the said concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH will arise only after starting production; without running the factory, the question of paying the said electricity tariff amount at the said rate will not arise. In this case, the payment of electricity tariff at the said concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH will arise only after starting production; without running the factory, the question of paying the said electricity tariff amount at the said rate will not arise. So the necessity to grant such concessions, when the petitioner-company did not start production will not arise and the petitioner company need not pay any such amount when it was not functioning.Even while framing the said scheme by the BIFR the said concessions were taken into consideration to find out the viability only from the date of starting production, viz., 1996. That fact can be appreciated from the annexures to the said scheme. As submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-company the State Government have approved the said draft scheme, which includes the annexures also. In the said annexures, the payment of electricity tariff at the concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH has been calculated only for the years 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 for the purpose of arriving at the profitability projections. When the parties concerned have understood that the said concessions were given for a period of four years from the date of production, the impugned order passed on the basis that the said concessions were given effect to from 1992 itself cannot be sustained. The Board in the letter dated February 18, 1995, has stated that the petitioner can inform the Superintending Engineer that it had commenced their operation and requesting him to allow it to pay the electricity tariff at the concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH. But for the month of February, 1995, the petitioner-company received a bill without giving effect to the order, and charged the petitioner-company not at the concessional rate of tariff. So, the petitioner has sent a letter dated March 13, 1995, to the chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board requesting him to implement the said Government order and calculate the charges at the concessional rate of tariff. Meanwhile, the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electric Distribution Circle, Mettur Dam, informed the petitioner that he had addressed to the headquarters for implementing the said Government order and for further instruction for issue of bills from the date of reopening of the company. Meanwhile, the Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electric Distribution Circle, Mettur Dam, informed the petitioner that he had addressed to the headquarters for implementing the said Government order and for further instruction for issue of bills from the date of reopening of the company. It is also stated that on receipt of instruction, the bill for February already given to the petitioner would be revised. Thereafter the bill was revised calculating charges at the concessional tariff rate on March 25, 1995, and charged at the regular charges for the period prior to February 21, 1995. From the above said facts, and also from the counter filed by the third respondent, it is very clear that the Electricity Board had correctly understood the scope of the Government order regarding the period for which the said concessions were granted i.e., four years from the date of starting production.Above all, during the course of arguments, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/Electricity Board, R. Thiagarajan has submitted that fixing April 28, 1992, for starting the said period of four years as stated in the impugned order cannot be correct, and, the starting point is from September 30, 1994, as mentioned in clause 3 of the said scheme. So, even according to the learned senior counsel for the respondent Electricity Board the basis on which the impugned order is passed cannot be sustained. As the impugned order proceeds only on the basis that the said period of four years is over on April 28, 1996, and so the petitioner-company is not entitled for any concessions, after April 28, 1996. Further, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board, has given a different date for the starting point with regard to the production by the petitioner-company, i.e., from September 30, 1994, which according to him is the cut-off date, from which date the petitioner-company has started to enjoy the concessions as per the said scheme. But, unfortunately, this is not the reason stated in the impugned order. It is also relevant to mention that admittedly the said concessions for payment of electricity tariff at the concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH were not availed of by the petitioner-company till the date of production, namely, January 21, 1995, as there was no occasion for the petitioner-company to avail of the said concession. It is also relevant to mention that admittedly the said concessions for payment of electricity tariff at the concessional consolidated rate of Re. 1 per KWH were not availed of by the petitioner-company till the date of production, namely, January 21, 1995, as there was no occasion for the petitioner-company to avail of the said concession. Even this submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Electricity Board cannot be sustained. In clause 4D of the said scheme, the starting dates with reference to each concession have been mentioned separately except for the concession, which is in dispute. Only with reference to the directions regarding the financial institutions-banks, the said date of September 30, 1994, has been taken into account. So, the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Electricity Board that September 30, 1994, is the starting point for the said period for four years cannot be countenanced.The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Electricity Board, has further submitted that in view of the order of the BIFR dated September 10, 1997, holding that the petitioner-company had ceased to be a sick industrial company within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the said Act, the petitioner-company cannot claim the said concession at least after September 10, 1997. The said order was passed at the instance of the petitioner-company so as to enable it to get financial assistance to establish the captive power plant at 75 KW. It cannot be denied, if the petitioner-company is a sick industry, it cannot get financial assistance and so it has come forward with the above said petition. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Electricity Board has relied on the petitioner-company's communication sent for the purpose of getting the order dated September 10, 1997, to the BIFR stating that the company has fully implemented the scheme and carried out all the conditions as directed in the said scheme and so the petitioner is not entitled for the said concessions. The said submission also cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the petitioner has been admittedly enjoying the other concession given by the Electricity Board as mentioned in clause 4D of the said scheme. The said submission also cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that the petitioner has been admittedly enjoying the other concession given by the Electricity Board as mentioned in clause 4D of the said scheme. Notwithstanding the order dated July 10, 1997, the petitioner-company is being allowed to enjoy the other concessions mentioned therein as the duration of the said concessions are yet to be over and so the submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession in question alone, in view of the order passed by the BIFR dated September 10, 1997, cannot be sustained. When the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Electricity Board is not in a position to sustain the impugned order on the basis of the reasons mentioned therein, the said impugned order has to be set aside. If for any other reason, they want to withdraw the said concession, even before the said concessional period is over, the petitioner-company should be put on notice and it should be given an opportunity before withdrawing such concession.The petitioner-company must know under what reason the benefits/concessions given to the petitioner-company have been withdrawn by the respondent-Electricity Board. An order passed behind the back would be against the interest of the petitioners without putting them on notice, or giving them an opportunity to have their say, cannot be sustained. Even in the decision in S. K. Bhargava v. Collector the apex court has held as follows (page 796 of Comp Cas) : "In our opinion, even though section 3 does not expressly provide for an opportunity being given to the alleged defaulter to explain as to whether any amount is due or not but in view of the nature of the said provision, the principles of natural justice must be read into it. The requirement of determination of the sum due by the managing director must be regarded as providing for the managing director hearing the alleged defaulter before coming to the conclusion as to what is the sum due. The very use of the words 'determine' and 'sum due' implies that there may be a lis between the parties and they have to be heard before a final conclusion is arrived at by the managing director. The very use of the words 'determine' and 'sum due' implies that there may be a lis between the parties and they have to be heard before a final conclusion is arrived at by the managing director. It is not a mere claim of the corporation which is forwarded to the Collector for realisation, but it is the 'sum due' as determined by the managing director which alone is recoverable. As already observed, this determination cannot be done without notice to the alleged defaulter. Ms. S. Janani, learned counsel for the respondent-Financial Corporation, sought to rely upon the decision of this court in Director of Industries v. Deep Chand Agarwal. In that case, the validity of section 3 of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues), Act, 1965 of the U.P. was challenged. That section enabled the State Government to recover the sums advanced as arrears of land revenue and it was sought to be contended that the said provision was discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The validity of the said section 3 was upheld, but we find that the court was not called upon to deal with a question as to whether the principles of natural justice were implicitly enshrined in the said section. In any case, this decision is of no assistance to the respondent for the simple reason that section 3 of the U.P. Act is not identical with section 3 of the Haryana Act, inasmuch as the U.P. Act did not contain a provision similar to section 3(1)(b) of the Haryana Act which requires determination by the managing director of the sum due from the defaulter. We, however, do not express any opinion that where a provision like section 3(1)(b) of the Haryana Act is not incorporated in a statute, whether the principles of natural justice would require a notice being given before any amount is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue." In view of the above said principles of law, and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained, and the same is set aside, accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 30295 and 30296 of 1997 are closed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 30295 and 30296 of 1997 are closed. After disposal of the above writ petitions on November 25, 1999, at the instance of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 19331 of 1997 and for the third respondent in W.P. No. 151 of 1998, they have been posted for "being mentioned" for the purpose of giving direction to return the amounts already paid under the order of the Division Bench of this court, and the order of the Supreme Court, pending the above writ petitions. It is not disputed that pending the writ petitions, the Division Bench of this court in the order dated January 7, 1998, directed the petitioner-company to deposit a sum of Rs. 5, 00, 00, 000 and as per the direction of the apex court, the petitioner-company paid another sum of Rs. 10, 00, 00, 000 in all amounting to Rs. 15, 00, 00, 000. Since there was no observation in the order of this court dated November 25, 1999, with respect to the said payments, these writ petitions have been posted for "being mentioned". When the said amounts were paid only as a condition for granting stay, and in view of the fact that these writ petitions have been allowed, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner-company is entitled to get refund of the said amounts. At this stage, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has submitted that the petitioner-company is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4, 79, 54, 593 to the Electricity Board, as per the scheme, which is not in dispute. Though the said amount was due earlier, in view of the scheme, it has been postponed for the subsequent period, and the said amount has to be paid on January 5, 2000, February 5, 2000, and March 8, 2000. The petitioner-company has no objection to retention of the said amount of Rs. 4, 79, 54, 593 by the Electricity Board. Since the petitioner-company is entitled for the balance amount paid, the Electricity Board is directed to pay the balance amount due to the petitioner-company within one month from today, December 6, 1999.