Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to grant the benifits of clause 9.6 of the Industrial Policy, 1995 by giving exemption from payment of minimum guarantee charges if the contracted load is upto 500 KVA and for a direction for refund of the entire amount of minimum guarantee charges illegally realised by the respondent-Board from the petitioner. 2. Petitioners case is that it is a proprietorship firm and the proprietor of the firm set up an industry in the terms of the Industrial policy, 1995 for manufacturing refractories products and for the said purpose the petitioner has taken electric connection of contract load of 50 H.P. and started production from 5-7-97. It is alleged that in spite of the provisions in the Industrial Policy, 1995, the respondent-Board is not extending the benefits of the Industrial Policy by granting exemption from payment of in terms of Sec.78A of the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948 to the Electricity Board. In terms of the aforesaid direction the State Govt. vide memo No.3493 dated 3-9-96 issued a notification under Sec. 78A of the said Act and has taken a decision to exempt industrial units coming into production between 1-4-95 to 31-8-2000 from levy of minimum guarantee charges for a period of five years whose connected load is upto 500 KVA. A copy of the said memo has been filed and annexed as annexure 2 to this writ petition. It is stated that subsequently the respondent-Board had also issued a circular dated 11-10-96 pursuant to the direction issued by the State Govt. and communicated the said letter to all connected circles directing not to levy minimum guarantee charges from the industrial units coming into production between 1-4-95 to 31-8-2000 whose connected load is upto 500 KVA. A copy of the said letter has been filed and marked as annexure 3 to the writ petition. Petitioners further case is that on 26-6-97 a letter was written to the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Division, asking for remission from payment of minimum guarantee charges under the aforementioned policy since the connected load is less than 500 KVA but the respondent-Board illegally and arbitrarily raised the bill charging minimum guarantee charges from the petitioner and threatened to disconnect the line if the petitioner fails to pay the same. It is further stated that the respondent-Board has also illegally and arbitrarily charged minimum guarantee charges on annual basis and not on monthly basis in spite of the decision of this Court in CWJ No. 296/97R. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents-Board stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is a L.T.I. consumer having load of 50 H.P. and is not entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Policy as also the direction issued by the State Govt. under Sec. 78A of the Act and, as such, the action of the respondent-Board is justified in not giving the benefits to the petitioner. It is further stated that the bill raised by the Board is on account of monthly minimum consumption charges as per the Tariff of 1993 and the alleged circular of 1996 is not applicable to the petitioner which is a L.T.I. consumer. Further case of the respondent-Board is that according to the circular if L.T.I. consumer who has exceeded his horse power from 80 to 99 in that case, from the date of taking connection the respondent-Board shall charge on L.T.I. basis from 1-9-95. It is further stated that the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges including the monthly minimum consumption charges as per the Tariff. 4. I have heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Board. 5. After having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits it appears that the main question which falls for consideration is as to whether in view of the Industrial Policy, 1995 followed by circular issued by the State Govt. and the letter issued by the respondents-Board the petitioner having L.T.I. connection is entiled to exemption from payment of A.M.G. charges for a period of five years. 6. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Sr. counsel mainly relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Eastern Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. Bihar State Electricity Board (CWJC No. 3241 /97) decided on 10-9-97). A copy of the order has been annexed as annexure 6 to the writ petition. 6. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Sr. counsel mainly relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s Eastern Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. Bihar State Electricity Board (CWJC No. 3241 /97) decided on 10-9-97). A copy of the order has been annexed as annexure 6 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the said judgment it appears that the petitioner of that case having L.T.I. connection had prayed for a declaration that it was entitled to exemption from payment of A.M.G. charges under the Industrial Policy, 1995. The stand of the Board was that exemption under the Industrial Policy was applicable only to the units having high tension connection and it was not applicable to the petitioner-unit which was having L.T.I. connection. A Bench of this Court while hearing the petition, directed the Additional Advocate General No. III to seek clarification of the circular from the Industry department . Accordingly a counter affidavit was filed in that case stating, inter alia, that exemption is available to those consumers who are having connected load upto 500 KVA irrespective of L.T.I. or H.T. line. The Addl. Advocate General stated before the Court that the benefits under the policy and Circular was available to all those consumers having L.T. and H.T. connection. In view of the statements made in the counter affidavit and the submissions made by the counsel, this Court passed the following order :- "In view of the statement made at the Bar,this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Bihar State Electricity Board to re-examine the petitioners claim for exemption from payment of minimum guarantee charges in terms of the Industrial Policy, 1995 in the light of the stand taken by the State Govt. Final order in this regard should be passed expeditiously and preferably within two months from today. Till final decision is taken by the Board in this regard, no coercive step will be taken against the petitioner for payments of the impugned demand." 7 In the instant case the respondent-Board has taken the same stand that the exemption granted under the Industrial policy, 1995 followed by the circular is not available to L.T.I. consumers. 8. Now I shall examine the circular issued by the State Govt. followed by a letter issued by the respondent-Board which has been annexed as annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition. 8. Now I shall examine the circular issued by the State Govt. followed by a letter issued by the respondent-Board which has been annexed as annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition. From perusal of annexure 2 which is a State Govt. Circular dated 3-9-96, it appears that the State Govt. decided to grant exemption from payment of minimum guarantee charges to those units who came into production between 1-4-95 to 31-8-2000 if those industrial units have connected load upto 500 KVA. Clause 3 of the said circular further provides that according to the tariff the consumers having electric connection below 50 H.P. come within the category of H.T. consumers. The State Govt. decided that under the new policy the L.T.I. consumers who had exceeded their horse power from 80 to 99 will still be treated as L.T.I. consumers. For better appreciation clause 3 of the Circular is re-produced herein below:- 9. Similarly in the letter issued by the respondent-Board vide memo No. 652 dated 11-10-96 the position has been clarified by providing that those consumers having load upto 99 H.P. will be treated as L.T.I. consumers. Clause 3 of the said letter reads as under :- 10. From the aforemetioned clauses of the circular and the letters it is evident that the respondents have made distinction in between H.T. consumers and the L.T. consumers. In clause 2 it is provided that those consumers who have set up their industries during the relevent period and having connected load upto 500 KVA, shall be granted exemption from payment of annual minimum gurantee charges. In clause 3 it is made clear that those consumers who exceded from 80H.P. to 99 H.P., will still be treated as L.T. I. consumers. 11. In similar circumstance this question was decided by a Bench of this Court in the case of Subhas Kumar V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board (CWJC No. 1235/97R) decided on 11-11-97. This Court, considering the respective cases of the parties held as under :- "Mr. Sen has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is L.T.I. consumer and he entered into LTI agreement with the Board. The whole claim of the petitioner is based on the resolution (annexure 4) which was issued by the Board deciding to give benefit of exemption in payment of minimum guarantee charges. Sen has not disputed the fact that the petitioner is L.T.I. consumer and he entered into LTI agreement with the Board. The whole claim of the petitioner is based on the resolution (annexure 4) which was issued by the Board deciding to give benefit of exemption in payment of minimum guarantee charges. Nowhere in the writ application the petitioner has stated that he is a high Tension consumer. On the contrary, it is specifically stated in the writ application that the petitioner was provided with 44 HP sanctioned load subject to low Tension Industrial Tariff. The claim of the petitioner is, therefore, wholly misconceived. A similar question arose in CWJC No. 2262/95R and this Court held that resolution /policy decision (annexure4) of the Govt. has no sanctity unless the same is adopted by the Board by incorporating it in the tariff. I have gone through the judgment of the aforesaid case, a copy of which has been produced before me by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board. I fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Besides the above, I am also of the view that the said resolution even if adopted by the Board by amending the tariff, the same will apply to the HTI consumers and not to LTI consumers, like the petitioner. In such circumstance, the respondent Board has rightly raised the impugned bill which the petitioner is liable to pay failing which the Board shall have every right to disconnect the supply of electricity.For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is dismissed." 12. The Judgment/order dated 10-9-97 passed by this Court in the case of M/s Eastern Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has no binding effect inasmuch as the question raised by the petitioner was not decided by the Court, rather, a direction was issued to the respondent-Board to consider the case of the petitioner in view of the concession made by the counsel appearing for the State. Moreover, it is well settled proposition of law that a concession made by the counsel on the point of law is not by itself sufficient for the Court to act upon without first examining the correct position of law and, such concession cannot be treated as an estoppel. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms of clause 3 of the circular issued by the state Govt. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms of clause 3 of the circular issued by the state Govt. and the letters issued by the respondents Board I am of the opinion that the LTI consumers having electricity connection upto 99 H.P. have been expressely excluded from the benefits of exemption of payment of annual minimum gurantee charges. Admittely the petitioner-unit has taken electric connection on contract load of 50 H.P. and comes within the category of LTI consumers. The conention of Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Sr. counsel, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 14. The other contention made by Mr. Pawan kumar that no distinction can be made between HT consumers and LT consumers in the matter of grant of remission and pyment of other charges recoverable by the respondent-Board has also no leg to stand particularly in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Bihar 440 Volt Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh (1997) 11 SCC 380 wherein their lordships observed :- "We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in reaching the conclusion that there was discrimination between the two types of consumers i.e. High Tension consumers and the low Tension consumers. There are two distinct and seperate classes. The minimum tariff / gurantees in so far as the low tension consumers are concerned, have been fixed keeping in view the nature of supply to these consumers. The low Tension consumers cannot be equated with the High Tension consumers. The High Court fell into patent error in clubbing the two categories together to prove the charges of discrimination. We, therefore, set aside the reasonings and the conclusion of the High Court so far as issue (i) is concerned and We hold that the levy on two distinct minimum gurantee charges quoted above is valid and in accordance with law. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. In view of the disposal of the above appeals, the special leave petitions stand disposed of / dismissed. No costs" . 15 It is however, clear from the aforesaid circular of the State Govt. that those consumers having LTI connection who exceeded their horse power from 80 to 99, the respondents-Board will raise bills on LTI basis from 1-9-95. In view of the disposal of the above appeals, the special leave petitions stand disposed of / dismissed. No costs" . 15 It is however, clear from the aforesaid circular of the State Govt. that those consumers having LTI connection who exceeded their horse power from 80 to 99, the respondents-Board will raise bills on LTI basis from 1-9-95. The petitioner is, therefore, liable to pay monthly minimum consumption charges as per tariff in view of the fact that the law has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board V. 440 volts Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh (1997 (11) SCC380) (supra). 16. Having regard to the discussions made above, I find no merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.Petition dismissed.