Judgment 1. The petitioner has sought for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of tariff concession to which the petitioner is entitled to as per G.O.Ms. No.29 (Energy) dated 31. 1995 and G.O.Ms. No.17 (Energy) dated 12. 1997 of the first respondent for a period of three years from the date of service connection and consequently to refund the excess money collected by the respondents from the petitioner. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Petition, the petitioner has stated that it applied for High Tension electricity service connection before the third respondent for required demand of 250 KVA on 211. 1996 and after complying with certain formalities, the Application was duly registered by the third respondent on 21. 1997 and the third respondent by his communication dated 13. 1997 accorded sanction for High Tension supply for the petitioners Flour Mill and the petitioner submitted Application for approval of Plan and for permission to carry out civil works before the Electrical Inspector and the petitioner paid Rs.90,000/- and Rs.62,500, in all a sum of Rs.1,52,500/- towards Earnest Money Deposit and service connection on 14. 1997 and after completion of civil works and installation of machineries and electrical equipments, the petitioner reported readiness to the third respondent on 30.6.1997 and on 30.3.1998, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,29,640/- towards estimate charges and meter caution deposit and the supply of electricity was extended to the petitioner on 7. 1998. According to the petitioner, it is eligible for tariff concession in terms of G.O.Ms. No.29 (Energy) dated 31. 1995 and G.O.Ms. No.17 (Energy) dated 12. 1997 and in spite of specific representation made by the petitioner, the respondents have not passed any order on the Application filed by the petitioner for grant of tariff concession. Hence the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition. 3. No counter was filed by the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 4 and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 5. The Supreme Court, in the latest decision in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. Status Spinning Mills Ltd. & Anr., 2008 (8) SCALE 161 , considered the connotation of the expression `set up in the context of the concessional tariff granted in favour of High Tension Industries in G.O.Ms. 5. The Supreme Court, in the latest decision in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. Status Spinning Mills Ltd. & Anr., 2008 (8) SCALE 161 , considered the connotation of the expression `set up in the context of the concessional tariff granted in favour of High Tension Industries in G.O.Ms. No.29 (Energy) dated 31. 1995 and G.O.Ms. No.17 (Energy) dated 12. 1997 and concluded thus: "Para 44. A distinction must be made between a policy decision and a statute. Whereas prima facie a policy decision may not have any retroactive operation, a statute may have. Only because it affects a past transaction the same, by itself, would not come in the way of the legislature in enacting an enactment or the executive Government to exercise its power of subordinate legislation. Para 45. We have noticed hereinbefore that some of the industries had even installed generators. They had to do it. They inevitably had to do it because the Board would not supply power. Would it not be too much to contend that even those industries have not been set up as they have not become consumers ? We think that for the said purpose, the proviso has to be read down. It must be made applicable to them who not only had started commercial production before the said date, namely, 14.02.1997 but also had applied and were otherwise ready to take electrical connections having deposited the amount asked for. Para 46. Those hard cases, even according to Mr. Ganguly, should be brought within the purview of the Proviso. We, therefore, hold: 1. As the concession had been granted by the State, it had the power to withdraw the same. 2. It is not a case where in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the State could not have in law amended the Schedule. 3. In view of existence of public interest the doctrine of promissory estoppel would have no Application. 4. Even otherwise the appellants having not preferred Appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the said questions cannot be permitted to be raised before us. 5. Proviso appended to the main provision should be read down as stated in paragraphs 44 and 45 supra. 6. In view of our findings aforementioned, we have not gone into the merit of the matter involved in each case separately. We direct accordingly. 5. Proviso appended to the main provision should be read down as stated in paragraphs 44 and 45 supra. 6. In view of our findings aforementioned, we have not gone into the merit of the matter involved in each case separately. We direct accordingly. The matters would now be examined by the Appropriate Authority of the Board, as directed by the High Court in individual cases. The Appeals are allowed with the aforementioned directions. No costs." 6. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the concessional tariff is applicable to the industries, which had started commercial production before 12. 1997 and also to the industries, which were otherwise ready to take electrical connections having deposited the amount asked for. 7. It is no doubt true that the petitioner had applied for High Tension electricity service connection on 211. 1996, but even according to the petitioner, its Application was registered by the third respondent only on 21. 1997 and sanction was accorded by order of the third respondent dated 13. 1997 and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,52,500/- towards Earnest Money Deposit and Service connection charges only on 14. 1997 and reported readiness to the third respondent on 30.6.1997. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was ready to take electrical connection having deposited the amount asked for before the cut-off date, namely, 12. 1997. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the Writ Petition. 8. There are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.