ORDER This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not allowing the benefit of 25% rebate on power tariff to the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.108, Industries and Commerce (IP) Department, dated 20-05-1996, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. I have heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Industries representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited representing respondent Nos.3 to 6. 3. The petitioner purchased the properties of M/s.Aravind Chemical Industries situated at Jeedimetla, Rang Reddy District, and approached the respondents for release of HT service. The petitioner averred that originally, the vendor of the property i.e., M/s.Aravin, Chemical Industries was enjoying LT Power connection for lighting purpose and the said service connection was transferred in the name of the petitioner with effect from June, 1997. It is the further plea of the petitioner that for the purpose (commencing commercial production, it has applied for HT connection and that it started its commercial production with support of diesel generators and later got the HT service connection released by the respondents. The Government of Andhra Pradesh announced its new industrial policy called "Target 2000" under GO.Ms.No.108, date 20-05-1996. Under the said policy, the State Government has announced various incentives to all new industrial units al 25% rebate for a period of three years electrical charges from the date commencement of commercial production is one such incentive. The petitioner approached the Industries Department for issue of eligibility certificate as envisaged in the said policy. Accordingly, the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District, ha issued eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner vide EC.No.8252/83/97, dated 26-12-1997, wheirein it has certified that the petitioner is entitled to the power rebate for a period of three years with effect from 11-04-1997. The petitioner's request was however rejected by the functionaries of respondent No.3. The petitioner ha evidently approached respondent No.2 who, in turn, has addressed letter, date 08-04-2003, to respondent No.1 in the backdrop of rejection of the petitioner request by the functionaries of respondent No.3 and requested respondent No.1 to issue necessary orders for providing 25% power rebate for a period of three years at least from 15-07-1998, if not from 11-04-1997 terms of T.O.O.(Comml) No.36, dated 08-03-1999. When there was no response to the said letter, the petitioner approached respondent No.1, who, in turn, called report from respondent No.3. As petitioner has not succeeded in getting rebate in power tariff, it has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Separate counter-affidavits have filed by respondent Nos.2 and 6. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed respondent No.2, it is inter alia stat originally, the petitioner-unit commenced production with ex Service Connection No.316, which transferred from M/s.Aravind Chemical Industries to the petitioner; that the erstwhile APSEB vide letter, dated 22-07-1997, informed that Connection No.316 was transferred name of the petitioner with effect from June 1997 and that later, HT supply was released to the petitioner on 15-07-1998 as dated 11-08-1998, of Deputy Electrical Engineer and that the petitioner-unit commenced commercial production on 11-04-1997. It is also stated that eligibility certificate was issued on 26-12-1997, but the AP TRANSCO, to which respondent No.3 succeeded, declined to extend 25% power rebate on the ground that industries with name change and title transfer are not eligible for such rebate. It is further stated that under G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20-05-1996, all eligible new industrial units are entitled for various incentives including 25% rebate in power bills for a period of three years from the date of commencement of commercial production and that the maximum admissible rebate for the three years' period is Rs. 50 lakhs in respect of large and medium industries and Rs. 30 lakhs in respect of small scale industries. It is also stated that as the petitioner obtained electricity connection for a demand of 100 KV A and surrendered the L.T.supply, the eligibility certificate was given in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner is therefore eligible for rebate in the power tariff. 6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.6, it is averred that original service connection Nos.316 and 729 were released in favour of M/s. Aravind Chemical Industries, Jeedimetla, on 13-02-1977; that subsequently, on an application for transfer of service connection and change of name, the transfer was effected in favour of the petitioner in the year 1997 and that the petitioner obtained eligibility certificate as if it is a new industry by concealing the fact hat the service was released way back on 13-05-1977 and that it has been in the usiness for 20 years since then. It is further stated that under G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20-05-1996, 25% power rebate is available new industries only and that in view of he transfer of the electricity service connection in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be construed as a new industry. Respondent No.6 also placed reliance on B.P.Ms.No.1, dated 03-04-1997, and pleaded that the consumers, who have purchased the old units, are not entitled to 25% rebate in the power tariff. 7. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the pleas raised by the petitioner in its affidavit. The learned Counsel submitted that the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner is not eligible for the power rebate cannot be sustained in the face of the uncontroverted fact that the petitioner is a newly established industry having purchased the land from the previous industry namely M/s.Aravind Chemical Industries Limited. He further submitted that in the face of the eligibility certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District, it is not permissible for respondent Nos.3 to 6 to deny the power rebate to the petitioner. 8. The learned Government Pleader for Industries representing respondent No.2 has supported the plea of the petitioner. He submitted thatunderG.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20-05-1996, all new industries other than those listed in the annexure will be eligible for 25% rebate in power bills for a period of three years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that as the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District, has issued the eligibility certificate, the same is conclusive and binding on respondent Nos.3 to 6. 9. Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6, has strenuously opposed the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and stated that as the petitioner has admittedly got the LT service connections transferred in its name, the petitioner cannot be treated as a new industry and therefore, it is not eligible for the power rebate. Adverting to the eligibility certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has obviously obtained the said certificate by suppressing the fact that it has got the two service connections transferred in its name and continued the previous industry purchased by it. 10. Adverting to the eligibility certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has obviously obtained the said certificate by suppressing the fact that it has got the two service connections transferred in its name and continued the previous industry purchased by it. 10. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. 11. The short issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is, whether the petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria prescribed in the above-reproduced clause. The area of controversy is rather narrow in the sense whether the petitioner, which has purchased an old unit and got two L T service connections transferred in its favour, cannot be termed as a new industrial unit. 12. Clauses 6.01 and 6.04 of G.O.Ms. No.108, dated 20-05-1996, which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present case, provided as under: "6.01 All New Industrial units, whether large, medium or small other than those listed in the Annexure, to be located anywhere in the State of Andhra Pradesh, except within the Municipal Corporation areas of Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam, and going into commercial production on or after November 15, 1995 are eligible for the following incentives. 6.04 Rebate in Electricity Charges: All new Industries, other than those listed in the Annexure and other than those set up in the Municipal Corporation areas of Hyderabad, Vijayawada and Visakhapatnam, will be eligible for 25% rebate in power bills (both demand and energy) or a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of commercial production. The rebate shall be allowed by the A.P.State Electricity Board in their monthly bills. The maximum total admissible rebate for the 3 years will be Rs. 50.00 lakhs in respect of Large and Medium Industries and Rs. 30.00 lakhs in respect of Small Scale Industries." 13. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it has only purchased the land of M/s.Aravind Chemical Industries Limited and that the existing LT power supply was used for lighting purpose. This plea is not specifically controverted by respondent No.6 in his counter-affidavit. 30.00 lakhs in respect of Small Scale Industries." 13. It is the specific case of the petitioner that it has only purchased the land of M/s.Aravind Chemical Industries Limited and that the existing LT power supply was used for lighting purpose. This plea is not specifically controverted by respondent No.6 in his counter-affidavit. On a careful reading of the above-reproduced Clauses 6.01 and 6.04, I am of the view that the main criteria for claiming power rebate is that the unit should be a new industrial unit and should have gone into commercial production on or before 15 November, 1995. According to letter, dated 08-04-2003, addressed by the Commissioner of Industries to the Secretary to Government the petitioner-unit, in whose favour the LT power connection stood in the name of M/s. Aravind Chemical Industries Limited was transferred with effect from June, 1997 and which obtained the HT power supply later, has gone into commercial production on 11-04-1997. In my opinion, the Indus Department being authorised to issue eligibility certificate as per the Government policy, ordinarily, the eligibility certificate issued by it is conclusive proof of eligibility of an industrial unit and binding on licensee. So long as the said eligibility certificate is not revoked by the competent authority, the licensee cannot go behind certificate and deny power rebate. Irrespective of whether a service connection was in existence previously, the Industries Department, having taken note of existence of such a service connection, has issued eligibility certificate in favour petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not permissible for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 deny power rebate to the petitioner face of such eligibility certificate. As the Industries Department is the proper and correct authority to decide whether the petitioner was a new industrial unit or not, its opinion is binding on respondent Nos.3 to 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the power rebate in terms of G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 20-05-1996, and the eligibility certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, Ranga Reddy District. 14. Though a feeble attempt was made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of laches, no specific plea has been raised in this regard by respondent Nos.3 to 6 in their counter affidavit. 14. Though a feeble attempt was made by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of laches, no specific plea has been raised in this regard by respondent Nos.3 to 6 in their counter affidavit. Moreover, the material on record shows that the petitioner had been persistently approaching the respondents for power rebate. Therefore, I am not convinced with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the Writ Petition suffered from laches. 15. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are directed to extend power rebate to the petitioner by adjusting the rebate amount towards the future consumption charges.