ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The facts are admitted. The appellant is a distillery and manufactures arrack. The arrack produced by the appellant is purchased by the State Government at prices fixed by the latter. Pursuant to representations made by the Andhra Pradesh Distillers Association, by an order passed on 7-2-1991, the State Government ordered that an additional payment of 0-10 paise per BL (bulk litre) on arrack of 30 Up supplied, be made to those distilleries which commission both anaerobic and aerobic treatment plants for the effluents, subject to the condition that they produce a certificate to that effect from the A.P. Pollution Control Board. 3. On the basis of this order, the appellant after setting up an effluent treatment plant, got the same certified by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The certificate of the Pollution Control Board is dated 18-6-1991 and certifies that the appellant had not only erected but had also commissioned an effluent treatment plant comprising an anaerobic and aerobic treatment plant since 1-10-1989. The certificate was forwarded by the appellant to the Director of Distilleries and Breweries, Andhra Pradesh. The 9 Director recorded this in his letter dated 7-9- 1991 and requested the Assistant Commissioner, Distilleries to visit the appellants distillery and submit his report, after verification of the same. It appears that the Assistant Commissioner, Distilleries was in fact the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Distilleries. This is clear from the inspection note given by the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Distilleries, dated 7-11-1991, where he also certified that the effluent treatment plant in question had been installed prior to 1989 and had been functioning since then. 4. The appellant then approached the Excise Authorities for grant of the enhanced price for the arrack. The Commissioner of Excise, Andhra Pradesh said that the additional payment would be allowed only if the required parameters for the purpose of pollution were certified each month for payment. 5. The appellant challenged this condition by filing a writ petition. The Writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. On appeal the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal by providing grant of enhanced price but subject to production of a certificate from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on a month-to-month basis certifying that the functioning of the appellants effluent treatment plant was achieving the standard fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board; 6. On appeal the Division Bench partly allowed the appeal by providing grant of enhanced price but subject to production of a certificate from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board on a month-to-month basis certifying that the functioning of the appellants effluent treatment plant was achieving the standard fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board; 6. This requirement has been challenged by the appellant. According to the appellant, the original order of the Government did not prescribe any such condition and that both the Commissioner of Excise as well as the High Court were wrong in making the grant of enhanced price dependent upon the monthly production of certificate. 7. It is true that the order dated 7-2-1991 issued by the Government does not speak of the production of a certificate from the Pollution Control Board on a monthly basis. However, the tenor of the order appears to be that the effluent treatment plant to be set up must be a functional one. In that view of the matter the appeal is disposed of by modifying the order under appeal to the extent that the appellant will be entitled to the enhanced price subject to the production of an annual certificate from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board that the effluent treatment plant set up by the appellant is functional and achieving the required parameters of purity.