ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner is a company with limited liability incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is running a textile mill at Birlagram, Nagda in the State of Madhya Pradesh where they spin yarn with the help of man-made fibre. 2. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Duty Act, 1949 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Duty Act') provides the levy of a duty on sale or consumption of electrical energy and the rate of duty was enhanced from time to time. Section 3-B of the Duty Act gives power to the State Government for granting examption so to encourage the establishment of any particular industry or class of industries in the State; or having regard to the particular circumstances of any industry or class of industries; or in order to extend facilities to such person or class of persons and for such purposes as the State Government, by notification, specify. In exercise of this power, the State Government issued the Notification No. 177-F-1-I-XIII-88 dated 14th January, 1988 and also subsequent Notification No. 4994-F-10-XIII-88 dated 15th December, 1988. By means of these two notifications the exemption from payment of duty on electrical energy sold or supplied to was granted and in the case of textile mills other than spinning mills exemption on duty was in excess of five paise per unit, under the notification dated 14th January, 1988 whereas under subsequent notification dated 15th December, 1988 exemption on duty was in excess of nine paise per unit. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in issuing the aforesaid notifications the State Government has acted in a discriminatory manner. So far as the Item No. 3 in notification dated 14th January, 1988 and Item No. 5 in notification dated 15th December, 1988 are concerned, they are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the textile mills and spinning mills they stand for the same ultimate object i.e. spinning of yarn and, therefore, they come in the same category and in granting exemption there could not be any discrimination. 4. Heard the learned State Counsel. Learned State Counsel submitted that the notifications do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned State Counsel. Learned State Counsel submitted that the notifications do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and are not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 permits the reasonable classification and in the present case while granting exemption from payment of duty on electrical energy sold or supplied to the petitioner, the State Government has taken care on the basis that the textile mills and spinning mills do not fall in the same category. The spinning mill only spins yarn or other material whereas the textile mill carries on the entire exercise right from the preparation of the yam upto the manufacture of the cloths. The consumers of the cloths and the yarn are different. It cannot be said that the textile mill and the spinning mill fall under the same category. So far as question of discrimination is concerned, it can be said that they are not similarly situated either for the purposes of process or ultimately to the end point. Section 3-B of the Duty Act empowers the State Government in regard to the grant of exemption from payment of duty and in exercise of that power the State Government has granted exemption. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not consider it a case where the impugned notifications could be said to be suffering from any infirmity so to be liable to be struck down by this Court. I do not find any merit in the petition. The writ petition deserves to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Security amount, deposited if any, may be refunded. Petition dismissed