Judgment :- Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J. The petitioner is the appellant in both the appeals: 2. Thewrit petitioner is a company carrying on business of manufacturing and dealing in Pottassium Chlorate. Originally, the company went under the name of Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited. Though the company had been carrying on the business of manufacturing other items (1) Refractories, (2) Salt glazed stoneware pipes, (3) R.C.C. spun pipes, (4) Red oxide, for the first time in 1982 Potassium Chlorate manufacture was commenced at the factory at Punakulam Village, Pudukottai District. The first three items mentioned above are being manufactured at a factory at Dalmiapuram and the fourth item is being manufactured at Hospet. 3. The State Government having introduced several incentives for persons who start new industrial undertakings especially in an industrially backward area, these two appeals relate to two such schemes. One was, an Amendment to the Schedule to Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rate and Supply of Electrical Energy Act (Act 1 of 1979). By G.O.Ms.No.787, New High Tension Industries were given concessional tariff for the first five years, after the commencement of production. This amendment came into effect on 30.4.1979. The Notification states that this tariff concession is applicable only once to a consumer for a new industrial undertaking and will not be available for any subsequent expansion or diversification of production. The other was an incentive to industries located in industrially backward area. In 1980, a brochure was released by SIPCOT inviting people to set up industries, in industrially backward area giving various incentives. As per the brochure, new industries set up in a selected backward taluk listed in Annexure III of the brochure were entitled to backward area power tariff concession.These incentives were given to encourage industries to be set up in an industrially backward area. The petitioner (then known as Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited) applied for Industrial licence for setting up the plant for production of Potassium Chlorate at Punakulam as stated above desiring to take advantage of these incentives and obtained new licence. The erection of the factory commenced in the early part of 1981 at Punakulam, Pudukottai District, which was one of the backward areas listed in Annexure III of the SIPCOT Brochure referred to above. On 17. The erection of the factory commenced in the early part of 1981 at Punakulam, Pudukottai District, which was one of the backward areas listed in Annexure III of the SIPCOT Brochure referred to above. On 17. 1981, Pudukottai District was bifurcated and Gandharvakottai, in which Punakulam is located was upgraded as a full-fledged taluk, but Gandharvakottai was not included in the tariff concession rules in the list of backward area. On 30.4.1982, an amendment was introduced in G.O.Ms.No.787, dated 30.4.1979, which is G.O.Ms.No.861, P.W.D., wherein the Tariff Review Committee under the Chairmanship of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reviewed the financial burden of the Board and amended Sec.4 of the Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates of Supply of Electrical Energy Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1979) by introducing a condition that the concession given to new High Tension Industries will not apply from the year, when the industry starts earning profits. The factory at Punakulam commenced production on 5. 1982. The petitioner then wrote to the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board requesting them to let the petitioner know what are the formalities to be followed in order to avail of these incentives. The petitioner filled up the pro forma as required by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and complied with other formalities. On 4. 1983, the respondents informed the petitioner that the new industries concession had been granted from the date of commencement of production i.e., on 5. 1982 and also stating that this concession is allowed subject to the condition that the industry is running in loss. The respondent also requested the petitioner to provide documentary proof to show that the industry is still running in loss. The balance sheet for the year ending 33. 1983 and the certificate of the Auditors Balance Sheet were also given. 4. Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited changed its name to Shri Nataraj Ceramic and Chemical Industries Limited, and the 2nd respondent was informed of the change in the name of the company, pursuant to the fresh Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies dated 11. 1983. On 24. 1983, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.509 for grant of Capital Subsidy Scheme and included eight more taluks in the list of backward areas and a special mention is made therein, of Gandharvakottai, which had become upgraded as a full fledged taluk with effect from 8. 1981. 1983. On 24. 1983, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.509 for grant of Capital Subsidy Scheme and included eight more taluks in the list of backward areas and a special mention is made therein, of Gandharvakottai, which had become upgraded as a full fledged taluk with effect from 8. 1981. This G.O. directs that the said Capital Subsidy Scheme should be extended to Gandharvakottai taluk also. But the G.O. does not specifically clarify whether this extension would take effect from 8. 1981, the date of upgradation of Gandharvakottai. 5. Though the new industrial tariff concession was being granted from 1982-1983 onwards the petitioner did not receive the backward area tariff concession. Having set up the industrial undertaking in a backward area upon the promise that this concession would be given, the petitioner made repeated requests to SIPCOT for grant of the concession. On 20.5.1985, SIPCOT forwarded to the Government the representation of the petitioner for the backward area power tariff concession, since the unit was situate in Gandharvakottai taluk a notified backward area, but there was no response from the Government granting backward from the Government granting backward area power tariff concession. On 37. 1985, the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board issued a letter to the Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited, as the petitioner was originally named and informed the petitioner that the new industrial undertaking tariff concession would be stopped with effect from 7. 1985, until the profit and loss account and balance sheet of Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited are verified. All these records were called for. To this, the petitioner replied on 8. 1985 stating that the tariff concession was granted only to the industrial undertaking at Punakulam and not to the company at Dalmiapuram and that the profit and loss account and balance sheet of Dalmiapuram Industries Limited was irrelevant as far as tariff concession is concerned. 6. On the petitioners repeated representations for grant of backward ares power tariff concession, which was recommended by SIPCOT, the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board passed an order dated 27. 1986 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Gandharvakottai Taluk, in which the factory was situate is not yet declared as an industrially under developed area. On the petitioners repeated representations for grant of backward ares power tariff concession, which was recommended by SIPCOT, the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board passed an order dated 27. 1986 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Gandharvakottai Taluk, in which the factory was situate is not yet declared as an industrially under developed area. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8664 of 1986 for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the aforesaid letter and to direct the respondents to grant the backward area power tariff concession to the petitioners factory with effect from 5. 1982. 7. As regards the petitioners entitlement to power tariff concession as a new industrial undertaking, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board passed an order on 111. 1985 stating that since Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited had made a profit in the Accounting year ending on 30.3.1982, the Unit at Punakulam had become ineligible for continuance of the concessions and therefore, the concession had to be withdrawn with effect from 5. 1982 as per Rules. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.12571 of 1985 praying for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the order referred to above and for direction to the respondents to continue to supply electrical energy at the new industries concessional rate as granted by the order dated 4. 1983, as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 1979. 8. Both these writ petitions were heard together. Counter was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No.8664 of 1986 (the Backward Area Tariff Concession case); in which it was stated inter alia, that since Gandharvakottai Taluk, after being declared as an independent Taluk, does not find the place in the Government Orders under which the backward Taluks are notified, the petitioner would not be entitled to the said concession. A reply was filed by the petitioner to this counter, wherein it was stated that the Government has notified Gandharvakottai Taluk as a backward Taluk, entitled to Capital Investment Subsidy, which amounted to declaring the Taluk as an industrially backward area and the petitioner also said that having invited industrial entrepreneurs to set up industries in backward areas promising certain concessions, the respondents could not resile from this position. 9. Pending the writ petition, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.761, dated 5. 9. Pending the writ petition, the Government passed G.O.Ms.No.761, dated 5. 1988, wherein Gandharvakottai Taluk was categorically declared as an industrially backward Taluk and the respondents, in their counter, to an application filed by the petitioner for a direction to pay the backward area power tariff subsidy, have admitted that Gandharvakottai taluk as an industrially backward area and also the petitioners entitlement to the backward power tariff concession. However, the respondents stated therein that since the petitioner owed a huge amount as per the undertaking executed by the petitioner, while claiming the new industrial power tariff concession, such a direction could not be given. Therefore, it is seen from the pleadings of the respondents that the petitioner was indeed eligible to backward area power tariff concession, as per G.O. dated 5. 1988, which declares Gandharvakottai Taluk as an industrially backward Taluk with effect from 17. 1981. 10. In the counter filed in Writ Petition No.12571 of 1985, the respondents took the stand that the Unit at Punakulam was only an expansion of the existing units and that in any event, the new industrial undertaking power tariff concession would be available to the petitioner, only so long as it was running in loss as per the G.O., dated 30.4.1982 referred to above. 11. The respondents particularly stressed the following clauses from the said notification which is extracted hereunder: “The above concessions shall not apply from the year when the industry starts earning profits. Explanation 1: This tariff concession is applicable only once to a consumer for a new industrial undertaking and will not be available for any subsequent expansion or diversification of production.” 12. The respondents did not accept the case of the petitioner that the industrial undertaking at Punakulam was indeed running in loss. According to them, what was relevant to the issue was whether Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited of which Punakulam Unit formed a part, was earning profits or not. And since the balance sheet of the consumer, which is Dalmia Ceramic and Chemicals Limited showed earning profit, the petitioners unit at Punakulam was not eligible for the new industries power tariff concession. .13. The learned single Judge heard the writ petitions together and held that the petitioner was not a new industry, that it was only a branch started by way of expansion or diversification. .13. The learned single Judge heard the writ petitions together and held that the petitioner was not a new industry, that it was only a branch started by way of expansion or diversification. The argument of the Petitioner that in the Schedule to Act 1 of 1979, the two words “consumer” and “new” industrial undertaking’ were used which would show that when a consumer starts a new industrial undertaking, this concession was available and it is only if the industry started earning profits, it would lose the right to claim concession, was not accepted by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that as it is, the G.O. cannot be construed to mean that the profit of the new industry alone should be taken into consideration to find out whether the consumer is entitled to the concession. The petitioner also raised the question of promissory estoppel against the respondents. This was also rejected by the learned single Judge stating that there was nothing to show that it was only on the representation tariff concession would be given, that the petitioner started manufacture in a backward area. 14. Therefore, the learned single Judge held against the petitioner holding that the point involved in the writ petitions, whether the industry at Punakulam is a new industry or not and whether the said industry is entitled to concession, are matters to be decided by adducing evidence and that the proper remedy of the petitioner was to file suit. 15. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the present Writ Appeal No.1384 of 1991, as against the order in Writ Petition No.8664 of 1986 and it relates to backward area power tariff concession, and Writ Appeal No.1385 of 1991, is against the order in Writ Petition No.12571 of 1985, which relates to the withdrawal of tariff concession for new industries. 16. As far as the backward are concession is concerned, the learned single Judge held that the petitioner is not entitled to the backward area power tariff concession, since Gandharvakottai Taluk, where the petitioners industry is located does not find a place in the various G.Os., whereunder backward areas are notified. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant argued strenuously that as regards the grant of backward area power tariff concession, the only condition to be satisfied was whether the industrial undertaking was situate in a backward area. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant argued strenuously that as regards the grant of backward area power tariff concession, the only condition to be satisfied was whether the industrial undertaking was situate in a backward area. Once that is admitted, the respondent-Board had no option but to grant the same. The learned Judge rejected this claim only on the ground that Gandharvakottai Taluk was not a backward area, but even as per the admission of the respondent in their pleadings by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.671, dated 5. 1988, the Government had declared Gandharvakottai Taluk as a backward area with retrospective effect from 17. 1981, the date of bifurcation. 18. Itwas also stated in the G.O., that the failure to notify the said taluk was due to oversight. Having conceded this, the respondents are not entitled to refuse to grant this concession on the ground of other demands. The learned single Judge failed to see that the backward area power tariff concession and the concession available to the new industrial undertaking were two different things and the entitlement to the two concessions were not dependent on each other. 19. Having assured the public that the new industries set up in any of the selected backward areas are entitled to reduction in tariff, the respondent-Board cannot arbitrarily resile from this assurance. .20. Once the question whether the area in which the industrial undertaking is located is backward or not, is settled beyond doubt, there can be no justification for the respondents to deny the consequential reliefs/incentives, promised by the State to the industry. The brochure issued by SIPCOT clearly states that backward area power tariff subsidy is available to all industries set up in any of the selected backward area taluks. No condition has been attached thereto. The learned counsel for the respondent could not say anything as regards the grant of backward area power tariff concession, since it is a matter of record that G.O.Ms.No.671, dated 5. 1998 has notified Gandharvakottai Taluk as backward, and it has also been admitted by the respondent-Board in one of the counters filed before this Hon’ble Court. Therefore, it is totally unfair on the part of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to withhold the payment of the subsidy on irrelevant grounds and the impugned order will have to be set aside. 21. Therefore, it is totally unfair on the part of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to withhold the payment of the subsidy on irrelevant grounds and the impugned order will have to be set aside. 21. As far as Writ Appeal No.1385 of 1991 is concerned the counsel for the appellant would state that the amendment to Schedule to Tamil Nadu Revision of Tariff Rates and the Supply of Electrical Energy Act dated 30.4.1979, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.861, dated 30.4.1982 only states that this tariff concession available to a new industrial undertaking will cease from the year in which the industries start earning profits. 22. Counsel would state that the authority intended to make a distinction between the consumer and an industrial undertaking. When a consumer commenced a new industrial undertaking, the consumer was entitled to this concession. The counsel also stated that as regards disentitlement on the ground of earning profit, the word used is “industry” and not “consumer”. So the fact that the consumer is earning profit as per the balance sheet is not relevant, but what is relevant is whether the industry is running at loss or profit. The counsel produced the balance sheets of the Unit at Punakulam and a certificate of the auditor which testified to the fact that the industrial unit at Punakulam was running at a loss. 23. The other ground on which the appellant was denied the concession was that this was only an expansion of an existing undertaking and as per the explanation extracted above, the concession is not available for expansion or diversification. 24. The learned single Judge while correctly holding that the concession given to a new industrial undertaking was to promote industries in a backward area in order to encourage people to start new industries and to provide employment opportunity, held against the petitioners on the ground that the undertaking at Punakulam was not a new industrial undertaking but only an expansion and diversification of the existing industry. 25. For this the learned single Judge relied on the Balance Sheet submitted by the petitioner to hold that the Unit at Punakulam was only and expansion and diversification. 25. For this the learned single Judge relied on the Balance Sheet submitted by the petitioner to hold that the Unit at Punakulam was only and expansion and diversification. The learned single Judge has also held that there is nothing in the Act to show that only the profit of the new industry has to be taken into consideration to find out whether the consumer is entitled to the benefit of concession. 126. It must be stated at the outset that the Government periodically introduced various incentives to persons setting up new industrial undertaking to encourage industrial activity, and starting of new industries and locating industries in backward area. .27. The Tamil Nadu Revision Tariff Rates and Supply of Electrical Energy Act 1 of 1979 clearly states that the tariff concession will he given to a consumer for a new industrial undertaking and not for subsequent expansion or diversification of production. This is seen from Note-1 to the schedule Part-I. Note-2 states that if a consumer starts a Branch Mill for the manufacture of the same product, the Branch Mill is not entitled to the concession. It is a matter of record that in the instant case, the “consumer” is Dalmia Ceramic Industries Limited. The consumer commenced a new industrial undertaking to manufacture Potassium Chlorate, which was a new venture and it had not manufactured the product elsewhere. In the application, questionnaire filled by the petitioner for claiming the concessions, it is stated at item No.17 that the industry is not a Branch Mill manufacturing the same product, and item No.19 that the industry is a new one and not an expansion or diversification of existing unit. 128. The petitioner also stated in one of its letters to the respondent-Board that the product manufactured in this factory was not used as raw material in any of the said units. 129. Satisfied by all the particulars, and the materials furnished by the petitioner, the respondent had sanctioned the new industrial tariff concession. It is only when the Balance Sheet of Dalmia Ceramic Industries Ltd. (the consumer) was produced, which showed profits that the concession was withdrawn. In fact, the counsel for the appellant pointed out that originally when the formalities were finalised for the erection of the plaint, this clause relating to profit was not there. It is only when the Balance Sheet of Dalmia Ceramic Industries Ltd. (the consumer) was produced, which showed profits that the concession was withdrawn. In fact, the counsel for the appellant pointed out that originally when the formalities were finalised for the erection of the plaint, this clause relating to profit was not there. As it happened G.O.Ms.No.861 introducing the profit element is dated 30.4.1982 and the petitioner commenced production the next day. 130. The counsel for the appellant pointed out that in Act 1 of 1979 the two terms were used distinct from each other and not synonymously viz., “consumer” and “industry”. The concession is given to the consumer, who starts an industry, which concession will not be granted from the year, industry starts making profits. This is how it has to be understood. The counsel would state that if the fact that Dalmia Ceramic Industry Limited was earnings profits would be relevant to the issue, then the term used in the Act would be when the consumer starts earning profits. 131. Therefore, the counsel would state that in order to encourage the new industry, the Government granted incentive until the new industry got over its teething troubles and began making profits. Therefore, the respondent-Board has only to see whether the Profit and Loss Account of the new Unit showed loss or not. The counsel for the petitioner produced the Balance Sheet and the Certificate of the Auditor to show that the Punakulam Unit was still running at a loss on the relevant date. 132. The counsel for the appellant also said that with regard to Explanation I of the Act, again the court has to note that the two terms “consumer” and “industrial undertaking” are used distinctly and to refer to two different things. Therefore, once it is established that the Unit at Punakulam was a new undertaking started by the consumer, where a new product was manufactured, which was not manufactured elsewhere, the unit would definitely come under the category of “new industrial undertaking”. .33. He would state that any other interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.861 would nullify the object of such incentives being given to the public. He would also state that what was sought to be given to a consumer was a one time incentive when the consumer started a new industrial undertaking, which would not be available for subsequent diversification or expansion of that undertaking. 134. He would also state that what was sought to be given to a consumer was a one time incentive when the consumer started a new industrial undertaking, which would not be available for subsequent diversification or expansion of that undertaking. 134. It is stated by the counsel for the appellant and not controverted by the counsel for the respondent that this power tariff concession has been claimed by the petitioner for the first time and not earlier. In fact, the letter from the respondent-Board dated 4. 1983 is evidence of fact that the Board accepted the appellants case that it is a new industrial undertaking. The rejection was only on the ground of that Dalmia Ceramics Industries Limited was earning profits. 20.35. The counsel for the respondent could not say anything as regards the grant of backward area power tariff concession, since it is a matter of record that G.O.Ms.No.671, dated 5. 1988 has notified Gandharvakottai Taluk as a backward taluk with effect from 17. 1981 and it has also been admitted by the respondent-Board in one of the counters filed before this Hon’ble Court. 236. As regards the concession available to a new industrial undertaking, the counsel for the respondent would state that what should be taken into account is whether the consumer is earning profit and if it is proved to be so, the fact that the new industrial undertaking is running at a loss is really not germane to the issue. 237. A reading of the language of Act 1 of 1979 clearly shows that the State had definitely intended to give incentives to the new industrial undertaking stated by the consumer and the Profit and Loss Account of the new undertaking alone has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of granting concession. The documents produced by the counsel for the petitioner also show that on the relevant date, the petitioner was not earning profit and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Chairman. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board withdrawing the concession is not sustainable. 238. The documents produced by the counsel for the petitioner also show that on the relevant date, the petitioner was not earning profit and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Chairman. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board withdrawing the concession is not sustainable. 238. In view of the fact that the respondent-Board itself originally granted the concession holding that the Punakulam unit is a new industry, the learned single Judge ought not to have held that it is not a new industry entitled to concession and once the unit is held to be a new industrial undertaking as stated above, as long as it is running at a loss, the industry is entitled to the benefit of the concession for the first five years after commencement of production. The G.O. clearly refers to the profit of the industry and not profit of the consumer. .39. The learned single Judge had also held that the remedy of the appellant is to file a suit if there is a breach of their agreements with the respondent-Board and not to file a writ. The respondent-Board, a statutory body, supplies energy as per certain terms and conditions in exercise of the power vested in it under the statute. The fact that an agreement in writing is entered into with each consumer does not make the statutory terms and conditions purely contractual and civil in nature. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathy Limited v. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board , A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1750 holds, “we are unable to uphold the view expressed by the Full Bench in the judgment under appeal. The terms and conditions of supply are purely contractual. In our opinion, the terms and conditions of supply are statutory in character.” Therefore, the appellant herein is entitled to seek his remedy before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 240. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed and the writ appeals are allowed. Consequently the connected C.M.Ps. are closed.