JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. Since common issues have been raised in these three writ applications, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Challenge commonly made in these writ applications is to the orders passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, J.S.E.B. against the demand for payment of the A.M.G. charges refusing to grant them the benefit of exemption under Clause 15.2.11 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. An alternative prayer has been made for correcting the A.M.G. Bills which have been raised on the basis of K.V.A. recorded in a particular month instead of on the basis of the contract-demand under the provisions of Clause 15.2.17 of the Industrial Policy, 2001. 4. The petitioners are individual small scale industrial units established in the State of Jharkhand. Each of these units had entered into separate agreements with the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for contract demand of electric supply for running the units. The petitioner M/s Hi-tech Glass Industries, Ranchi [W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004J had entered into the contract demand Agreement for supply of 100 K.V.A. electricity and the electric supply was commenced from 23.6.2001, where after from 1.9.2001, the unit started commercial production. The impugned A.M.G. Bill dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure-5) of this unit relates to the year 2002-03. The petitioner, M/s Ajanta Bottlers and Blenders Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi [W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003J is a medium scale industrial unit, had initially entered into a contract demand of 75 HP, which was later enhanced to 200 K.V.A. by a fresh Agreement executed by and between the petitioner and the Respondent-J.S.E.B., on 6.6.2002 and thereafter the unit commenced commercial production with effect from 20.12.2002. The petitioner M/s Maithan Coal Company Pvt. Ltd., Dhanbad [W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003J is also a small scale industrial unit established in the District Industries Centre, Dhanbad, which was established in the year 1975 and had come into commercial production with effect from 27.7.1995. Initially it was having a contract demand agreement of 100 K.V.A., which was later enhanced by a further increase in the contract demand up to 120 K.V.A. and to that extent a new Agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the Respondent-Board with effect from 1.9.2000. The unit had proposed to expand/modernize its establishment by increasing its production capacity with an additional investment of Rs. The unit had proposed to expand/modernize its establishment by increasing its production capacity with an additional investment of Rs. 30 Lakhs and for such purposes, had obtained approval/permission of the District Industries Center, Dhanbad in April, 2000 and was registered accordingly, with the District Industries Unit with the grant of a permanent Registration Certificate. The District Industries Center, Dhanbad had declared the commencement of the expansion/modernization to take effect from 10.4.2000 and would continue up to 15.11.2001. The impugned A.M.G. Bill pertains to the period 2002-03, dated 10.4.2003 (Annexure-9). 5. The main ground on which the reliefs, as prayed for, have been claimed by the petitioners' units is that, they are entitled to all the benefits reserved to the small scale industrial units under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, issued by the Government of Jharkhand in the year 2001, granting inter alia, several incentives to the various categories of industries including the incentives on energy/power consumption. The petitioners claim the benefit of the provisions of Clause 15.2.11, which provides exemption from payment of the minimum guarantee charges for new small scale industrial units, having connected load up to 50 K.VA or equivalent HP as per billing norms. The petitioners would also want to avail the benefits of the billing norms prescribed under Clause 15.2.17 of the Industrial Policy under which for H.T. consumers, if the consumption exceeds the contracted demand up to 15 per cent in a particular month, minimum guarantee charges, fixed charges etc. shall be charged extra for that particular month only. On the other hand if consumption exceeds the contracted demand beyond 15 per cent, minimum guarantee charges/ fixed charges etc. shall be charged extra for a period of only 6 months instead of present 12 months. The petitioner no. 3 has claimed an identical treatment as extended to the new units, for grant of the benefits of the incentives as extended under Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy, which refers to similar Incentives which have been extended to the new units, on the ground that it has undertaken expansion/modernization during "the period covered under the Industrial Policy, 2001, on the ground that its unit had gone for expansion/modernization in the year 2002-2003. . 6. Mr. . 6. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, was made effective from 15th November, 2000 and the new Industrial units as also the old units which had gone for expansion/ modernization, are entitled to get the benefits of the incentives, provided under , Clause 15.2.11 and Clause 15.2.17 of the Industrial Policy. Learned counsel explains that earlier under Clause 16.5 of the 1993 Tariff, it was stipulated that if during any month in a financial year, the actual maximum demand of a consumer exceeds 110 per cent of the contracted demand. then the higher demands so recorded, shall be treated as the contracted demand for that particular financial year and the Minimum Base Charge to them in respect of maximum demand and the energy charges, shall be payable on that basis. The earlier Clause 16.5 of the 1993 Tariff has been modified by the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. Clause 15.2.17 of the Industrial Policy, which provides the new billing procedure for H.T. consumers, stipulating that if the consumption exceeds the contracted demand up to 15 per cent in a particular month, minimum guarantee charges, fixed charges etc., shall be charged extra for that particular month only. On the other hand, if consumption exceeds the contracted demand beyond 15 per cent minimum guarantee charges, fixed charges, etc. shall be charged extra for a period of only 6 months, instead of 12 months. Learned counsel adds that pursuant to the Industrial Policy, the Energy Department of the State of Jharkhand, issued a resolution, dated 13.8.2002 (Annexure-6), under Section 78(A) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 affirming the various benefits granted to the electricity consumers in terms of the Industrial Policy. However, though the benefit of Clause 15.2.17 of the Industrial Policy, was granted in terms of Clause 12.2 of the Resolution but the benefit of Clause 15.2.11 relating to exemption from the Minimum Guarantee charges, was not included in the Resolution. Learned counsel adds that pursuant to the Resolution of the Energy Department, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board also issued a Notification dated 29 8.2002 (Annexure-7), adopting the Resolution of the Energy Department though with a rider that the incentives assured under the Resolution would be available with effect from 1.9.2002 only. Learned counsel adds that pursuant to the Resolution of the Energy Department, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board also issued a Notification dated 29 8.2002 (Annexure-7), adopting the Resolution of the Energy Department though with a rider that the incentives assured under the Resolution would be available with effect from 1.9.2002 only. The Resolution of the J.S.E.B. had although assured the benefits of Clasue 15.2.17 but the benefits of exemption from the payment of the AM.G. charges in terms of the .Industrial Policy, was not given. Mr. Mittal explains that the. grievance of the petitioners is that the Respondent-Board had raised the AM.G. Bi1ls against the petitioners thereby denying the benefits of the incentives granted under Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy and furthermore, such bills have been raised in contravention of Clause 15.2.17 by computing the contract demand for AM.G. over a period of 12 months instead of 6 months. The contention of Mr. Mittal is that the Jharkhand State Electricity Board cannot deny the benefit, which is assured to the petitioners' units in terms of Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy and neither can the Jharkhand State Electricity Board implement the provisions of the Industrial Policy with effect from belated date i.e. from 1.9.2002 although the industrial Policy became effective from 15.11.2000. 7. Refuting the claim of the petitioners, the stand taken by the Respondents J.S.E.B. as stated in their counter affidavit and as explained by their Senior Counsel Mr. V.P. Singh, are mainly twofold:- (i) Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy has not been adopted by the J.S.E.B., since the same was not mentioned in the Resolution of the State Energy Department. (ii) The Industrial Policy has been framed in respect of the new Industrial units and the J.S.E.B., which has adopted the Resolution of the Energy Department by notifying a Resolution dated 29.8.2002 (Annexure-7), has made it effective from 1.9.2002. Mr. V.P. Singh would explain that the J.S.E.B. is virtually• an autonomous body though obtaining guidance from the State Energy Department and also by its own Regulations and the provisions of the Electricity Act. Mr. V.P. Singh would explain that the J.S.E.B. is virtually• an autonomous body though obtaining guidance from the State Energy Department and also by its own Regulations and the provisions of the Electricity Act. The J.S.E.B., by adopting the Resolution of the State Energy Department, has also extended the benefit of exemption from payment of the Mini• mum Guarantee Charges in respect of the new industrial units with effect from 1.9.2002 and such benefits had continued till 31.12.2003, where after the concept of the A.M.G. was omitted by a new Tariff, which was introduced with effect from 1.1.2004. Learned counsel explains further, that following the communication received from the Energy Department of the State Government vide its letter dated 10.3.2005, a Notification dated 12.6.2006, was issued by the J.S.E.B., in the light of Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and declaring thereby that the incentives for medium and large industries can be granted only if the loss suffered by the J.S.E.B. in implementing the incentives/subsidy is compensated by the State Government. Mr. Singh would submit that no Government Policy can be made applicable for taking action by the Board, till such policy decision is communicated by the State under Section 78(A) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Learned counsel explains that the communication by the State Government through the concerned Department was made after the Energy Department had taken the resolution and therefore, the Respondent-Board was not under any obligation to implement the exemption under the Industrial Policy for extending the same to the petitioner prior to the date of communication. 8. Thus, the jist of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondent-J.S.E.B., is that the J.S.E.B. is not bound to grant exemption to the petitioner's unit in consonance with Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy and even if it is called upon by the State Government to extend the incentives to the petitioner's unit, it can do so only if the loss incurred by the J.S.E..B. is reimbursed by the State Government. 9. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the par-' ties, the following questions arise for determination:- (i) Whether the Jharkhand State Electricity Board can deny the benefit of the provisions of Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy to the petitioners? 9. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the par-' ties, the following questions arise for determination:- (i) Whether the Jharkhand State Electricity Board can deny the benefit of the provisions of Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy to the petitioners? (ii) Whether the Jharkhand State Electricity Board can fix a belated date for implementation of the provisions of the Industrial Policy with effect from 1.9.2002 instead of the date when the Industrial Policy was declared to be effective? (iii) Whether the Jharkhand State Electricity Board can impose any condition for extending the benefits of the provisions of Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy to the petitioners' units in terms of the provisions of Clause•23 of the Industrial Policy? 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5, namely, the Energy Department of the Government of Jharkhand, a categorical declaration has been made that the State Industrial Policy is effective from 15.11.2000 till 31.3.2005 and that the provisions of the Industrial Policy would be implemented by all the concerning Government departments including the Energy Department as also the J.S.E.B. A further declaration has been made that the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 has been approved by the Council of Ministers and hence, binding on all the departments of the Government. In Para 9 of its counter affidavit, the Respondent No.5 has reiterated the incentives assured to the new industrial units under Clauses 15.2.11 and 15.2.17 of the Industrial Policy, acknowledging that the aforesaid provisions of the Industrial Policy has been adopted by the Energy Department of the State Government and has also been implemented by the Respondent-J.S.E.B. with effect from 1.9.2002. 11. The admitted facts which emerge from the rival submissions are as follows:- (i) The units of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had commenced commercial production after the notification of the State Industrial Policy, which was made effective from 15.11.2000. Both these two units are, therefore, are deemed to be new units as defined under the Industrial Policy. 11. The admitted facts which emerge from the rival submissions are as follows:- (i) The units of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had commenced commercial production after the notification of the State Industrial Policy, which was made effective from 15.11.2000. Both these two units are, therefore, are deemed to be new units as defined under the Industrial Policy. The unit of the third petitioner was established in the year 1975, but it had expanded/modernized its establishment and commenced commercial production of the expanded unit in 2001 i.e. after the date when the State Industrial policy was made effective, (ii) Under Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy, incentive to new industrial units have been granted by way of exemption from A.M.G. charges for electric consumption. A similar benefit under Clause 22 of the Industrial Policy has been extended to the units, which had undertaken expansion/mod-ernization and had obtained certificates of expansion from the Industries Department after the date from which the Industrial Policy became effective. (iii). Under Clause 15.2.17 of the Industrial Policy, a new Tariff was introduced for H.T. consumers under which if the electric consumption exceeds the contracted demand up to 15 per cent in a particular month, minimum guarantee charges, fixed charges, etc. shall be charged extra for that particular month only. On the other hand, if consumption exceeds the contracted demand beyond 15 per cent, minimum guarantee charges/fixed charges etc. shall be charged extra for a period of six months instead of present 12 months. (iv) As declared by the Respondent No.5, namely, the Energy Department of the State Government, the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, was approved by the Council of Ministers and its provisions were implementable by all the concerning Government departments including the Energy Department as also the J.S.E.B., which was made effective from 15.11.2000 to 31.3.2005 was approved and therefore, binding and implementable by all the departments of the State Government including the State Energy Department. (v) The State Energy Department admits to have adopted the provisions of the Policy including the provisions of Clause 15.2.11 as also the provisions of Clause 15.2.17 by its Resolution dated 13.8.2002, though it had omitted in the Resolution to refer to the provisions of Clause 15.2:11, pertaining to the exemptions from payment of A.M.G. charges to the new industrial units. (vi) The J.S.E.B. has also notified its Resolution in consonance with the Resolution of the Energy Department extending the benefits of Clause 15.2.17 though making it effective from 1.9.2002 and thereby, enabling the benefits ,thereof, to the new industrial units from 1.9.2002. (vii) Though the J.S.E.B. has now agreed to offer the incentives to the petitioners' units but with a rider that the loss accrued to the J.S.E.B. by foregoing the A.M.G. charges from the petitioners' units, is to be reimbursed by the State Government as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Electricity Act. 12. The Jharkhand State Industrial Policy, 2001 was notified in the official Gazette specifying in express terms, the exemption to be granted to the industrial units of the State. The formal Resolutions of the concerned departments of the State by way of adopting the Industrial Policy, has to be in consonance with the Scheme envisaged under the Industrial Policy, including adoption of the express terms of the exemption to be granted to the industrial units. The formal Resolutions of the concerned departments of the State Government, notified by way of adopting the Industrial Policy, cannot deny the benefits accrued to the new industrial units under the Industrial Policy. In the case of Kalyanpur Cement Pvt. Ltd., Patna vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2002(2) PLJR 529 , the Patna High Court has held that once an assurance is given by the State Government in the form of the Industrial Policy, then the Government has to fulfill its commitment. 13. Thus, it appears that notwithstanding, the fact that the State Energy Department (Respondent No.5) had notified its Resolution on a later date adopting the provisions of the Industrial Policy but it assures that the benefits including the incentives would be implementable from the date when the Industrial Policy became effective. Therefore, since the Energy Department of the State Government has accepted to implement the provisions of the State Industrial Policy and to extend the incentives contained therein to the new industrial units with effect from the date when the Industrial Policy became effective, the Resolution issued by its Energy Department under Section 78(A) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 need not be taken as repugnant to the Industrial Policy, declared by the Government Resolution merely because it omits reference to Clause 15.2.11 of the Industrial Policy. 14. 14. Clause 36.2 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 provides for monitoring and review to be made and all concerned departments and organizations are required to issue follow-up notifications to give effect to the provisions of the policy within a month. If the appropriate departments of the Government has not issued such notification under Section 78(A) of the Electric Supply Act, 1948 in respect to Clause 92(1)(vi) for exemption from Minimum Guarantee Charges as per revival package, the respondents State is bound to give appropriate direction to the concerned department to give proper effect to the Industrial Policy, 1995. 15. Coming now to the question, as to whether the J.S.E.B. can deny the benefits of the incentive clauses of the Industrial Policy accrued to the petitioners, it has to be noted that though the Jharkhand State Electricity Board is a separate and distinct entity having its own Rules and Regulations. Yet, it is guided by the directions issued by the Energy Department of the State Government. Since the State Government through its concerned department has declared by its lssurances in the form of its Industrial Policy to grant the benefits of the incentives to the new industrial units with effect from the date specified, it became the responsibility of the State Government to fulfill its commitment and in this context, to issue necessary directives to the J.S.E.B. for ensuring that the incentives as promised under the State Industrial Policy, are granted to the new industrial units. 16. It appears that pursuant to the Resolution adopted by the Energy Department of the State Government and the directives issued by it to the J.S.E.B. in terms of the Resolution, the J.S.E.B. has also adopted a Resolution, agreeing to extend the incentives under the State Industrial Policy to the new industrial units, by notifying the Resolution taken by it in the context. However, it appears that the J.S.E.B. has put a rider for implementing the incentive provisions of the industrial policy by making it effective from 1.9.2002. Whether the J.S.E.B. can put such a rider by fixing its own date for implementation of the provisions of the industrial Policy? However, it appears that the J.S.E.B. has put a rider for implementing the incentive provisions of the industrial policy by making it effective from 1.9.2002. Whether the J.S.E.B. can put such a rider by fixing its own date for implementation of the provisions of the industrial Policy? The answer is an emphatic 'No" for two reasons: Firstly, since the Industrial Policy of the State Government was made effective from 15th November, 2000 and the terms of the Industrial Policy having been adopted by the Council of Ministers, it is binding upon each of the departments of the State Government including the Energy Department. Secondly, the Notification of the Resolution adopted by the Energy Department issued under Section 78(A), of the Electric (Supply) Act, 1948,pursuant to which the J.S.E.R has also notified its Resolution agreeing to implement the incentive clauses of the Industrial Policy, does not stipulate any date other than the date from which the Industrial Policy was made effective, for implementation of the Industrial Policy. In fact, the Energy Department as also the Industrial Department of the State Government in their respective counter affidavits have declared that the Industrial Policy, 2001, is effective from 15.11.2000. 17. Since the Board had accepted the Government direction given to it under Section 78(A) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, it is obliged to accept the benefit of the exemption to which the petitioners' units are entitled, without imposing any condition upon the petitioners. In this context, one may refer to the ratio decided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Industries and Another vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others reported in 2001 (1) JLJR (SC)678. 18. The above controversy appears to have been now resolved by the J.S.E.B. condescending to grant the exemption from payment of the A.M.G. charges to the petitioners' units from 15.11.2000 to 31.12.2003 though again with a rider that the loss accrued to the J.S.E.B. by granting the exemptions to the petitioners should be reimbursed by the State Government. 18. The above controversy appears to have been now resolved by the J.S.E.B. condescending to grant the exemption from payment of the A.M.G. charges to the petitioners' units from 15.11.2000 to 31.12.2003 though again with a rider that the loss accrued to the J.S.E.B. by granting the exemptions to the petitioners should be reimbursed by the State Government. It appears that by interpreting the letter dated 10.3.2005, addressed by the State Energy Department to it, the J.S.E.B. appears to have interpreted the letter to be one in terms of the provisions of Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003 though as pointed, out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the letter does not indicate that any offer has been made by the State Energy Department in terms of the provisions of Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 19. In any case, the invocation of the provisions of Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cannot be made in respect of the units of the present petitioners. The provisions of Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003, even if read with Clause 23 of the Jharkhand State Industrial Policy of 2001, applies only in the case of sick industries. None of the petitioner's units have been declared as sick industries. Even otherwise, the Electricity Act of 2003, did not come into force on and from the date when the Industrial Policy was made effective i.e. from 15.11.2000. 20. It is obvious that by trying to impose a condition, seeking reimbursement from the State Government for extending the benefits of incentives to the petitioner's units, the J.S.E.B. had indirectly wanted to deny the benefits of the Incentives assured to the new industrial units under the State Industrial Policy. 21. Even otherwise, the petitioners having not been called upon to fulfill the condition, it would be a matter exclusively between the State Government and the J.S.E.B. to decide as to whether the demand of the J.S.E.B. for reimbursing the losses sustained by the J.S.E.B. in granting exemptions to the petitioners and to work out the modalities therefor. 22. In the light of the above discussions, the questions which have been formulated above are answered in the following manner:- (i) The Jharkhand State Electricity Board cannot deny the benefit accrued to the petitioners in terms of Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy. 22. In the light of the above discussions, the questions which have been formulated above are answered in the following manner:- (i) The Jharkhand State Electricity Board cannot deny the benefit accrued to the petitioners in terms of Clause 15.2.11 of the State Industrial Policy. (ii) The Jharkhand State Electricity Board cannot put an arbitrary date for implementing the provisions of the Industrial Policy in respect to the industrial units with effect from 1.9.2002 instead of 15.11.2000, which is the date from which the Industrial Policy of 2001 was made effective. (iii) The Jharkhand State Electricity Board cannot impose any condition upon the petitioners to obtain assurance from the State Government for reimbursement of the loss sustained by the J.S.E.B., if any, for extending the benefits of exemptions from payment of the A.M.G. charges to the petitioners. 23. In the light of the above findings, I find merit in these writ applications. Accordingly, these writ applications [W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004 with W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003] are allowed. In the case of the petitioner vide W.P.(C) No. 1114 of 2004, the impugned order dated 19.1.2004, (Annexure-13) and the impugned A.M.G. bill for the year 20022003 (Annexure-4) are hereby quashed. In the case of the petitioner vide W.P.(C) No. 3839 of 2003, the impugned A.M.G. bill dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure-5), for the year 2002-03 is hereby quashed. In the case of the petitioner vide W.P.(C) No. 4025 of 2003, the impugned A.M.G. bill dated 10.4.2003 (Annexure-9) is hereby quashed. The Respondent-J.S.E.B. shall refund the amounts paid, if any, by the petitioners individually towards the impugned A.M.G. bills served upon them respectively, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 24. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-J.S.E.B.