ORDER : 1. These petitions are disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioners are Software Development Industries claiming the concessional rate of Power Tariff under HT2(a) category which is applicable to ‘Industries’ including Software Development Industries, whereas, the Respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer of BESCOM seeks to deprive them of this concessional rate of Power Tariff and wants to impose higher rate under category HT2(b) of the Power Tariff Schedule as “Commercial Establishments”. Facts in W.P.Nos.57324-57325/2015 (Talisma Corporation Pvt., Ltd., Vs. BESCOM & Others); 3. The facts of these cases are common and similar illustratively the facts in Writ Petition Nos.57324-57325/2015 of Talisma Corporation Private Limited are given herein below in brief:- The said industry obtained a Certificate from District Industries Centre, Government of Karnataka on 28.11.2001 certifying that the said industry is engaged in the activity of “Development of Computer Software” and was accordingly entitled to exemption from payment of Entry Tax and Purchase Tax on Computer Hardware, Computer Peripherals and other capital goods including captive power generation sets during implementation stage. The petitioner was accordingly given the power connection on 31.8.2000 under HT2(a) category and was accordingly was charged concessional rate of Tariff. 4. The Respondent-BESCOM issued a Circular on 10.11.2006 whereby relying upon the said Certificate issued by the District Industries Centre, reiterated the stand of providing the concessional rate of Power Tariff in the said Circular, without insisting upon Certificate from Information Technology & Bio-Technology Department. The relevant para-1 of the said Circular vide Annexure-G dated 10.11.2006 is quoted below for ready reference:- “Industrial Tariff may be extended to such Firms who have produced the Certificate earlier issued from Industries and Commerce Department, Govt. of Karnataka to the effect that the said Firms are involved in the Software development and Hardware. The certificate issued by the Joint Director, Industries & Commerce Department or Officer of higher rank shall be accepted for extending this Tariff benefit. Short Claims/Back billing charges need not be levied/preferred for the reason that the said Firms have not produced the Certificate issued from Information Technology & Bio- Technology Department on or after 13.05.2003 as required under Circular dated 13.05.2003 cited under reference (1). In other words, if the Firms who are engaged in Software development and Hardware have produced a Certificate issued from Industries and Commerce Department prior to 13.05.2003. In other words, if the Firms who are engaged in Software development and Hardware have produced a Certificate issued from Industries and Commerce Department prior to 13.05.2003. Certificate from Information Technology & Bio- Technology Department need not be insisted and to continue the benefit of Industrial Tariff without preferring any Short claims/Back billing charges.” 5. The Government of Karnataka in the meanwhile issued another Circular on 10.01.2002 announcing its Millennium IT Policy - 2000 and Millennium Biotech Policy - 2001 and interalia provided that for certain concessions to the Software Industry including concession in the Power Tariff, a requirement was introduced to obtain a Certificate from the Director of Information Technology and Biotechnology. The relevant requirement in the said Policy is also quoted below for ready reference:- “POWER TARIFFS: The IT and Biotech Companies are treated as “Industrial Consumers” and not “Commercial Consumers” for the purpose of levying electricity tariff as envisaged in the respective policies. The company seeking such concession shall make an application to KBITS. After due verification of actual requirements of the Power for IT/Biotech activities, the Director, IT and Biotechnology, will issue a certificate to the company based on which the KPTCL authorities shall levy the Industrial Tariff.” 6. The petitioner obtained said Certificate from the Director of Information Technology and Biotechnology later on in the year 2011 vide Certificate dated 02.04.2011, which is also quoted below for ready reference: “NO/KBITS/IPO/PTC/118/2011-12 Date: 02-04-2011 CERTIFICATE Sub: Issue of Certificate to M/s. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd, #214/6 Ramanamaharishi Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560080, as an Information Technology Industry to avail the benefit of Electricity Tariff Concession. Ref: 1. GO NO DE 119 EEB 97 Bangalore Dated 17-12-1997. 2. GO NO C1 162 SPQ 97 Bangalore Dated 12-6-1997. 3. GO NO IT 20 POL 2000 Bangalore Dated 24-5.2000. 4. GO NO DPAR 52 SEM 99 Bangalore Dated 3-12-1999. 5. Circular No.: BESCOM/GMT/BC-19/F-1029/2006- 07/Cys-140 Dated 10-11-2006 issued by the General Manager (Tech) BESCOM. 6. Company’s representation Dated 28-03-2011. This is to certify that, 1. M/s. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., located at #214/6 Ramanamaharishi Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560080, is registered as IT Company with this Directorate vide No.IT/registration/268/2010-11 dated 14-02- 2011. 2. GO NO DPAR 52 SEM 99 Bangalore Dated 3-12-1999. 5. Circular No.: BESCOM/GMT/BC-19/F-1029/2006- 07/Cys-140 Dated 10-11-2006 issued by the General Manager (Tech) BESCOM. 6. Company’s representation Dated 28-03-2011. This is to certify that, 1. M/s. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., located at #214/6 Ramanamaharishi Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560080, is registered as IT Company with this Directorate vide No.IT/registration/268/2010-11 dated 14-02- 2011. 2. This company is engaged in the activity of “Software Development” at the said address which is considered as Industrial Activity in terms of the GO cited at reference (2) & (3) for the purpose of fixation of Electricity and the electricity tariff to this industry shall be fixed on par with that of other industrial consumers as per the GO cited at reference (1) above. 3. This unit is eligible to avail the benefit of power tariff concessions treating as industry (and not commercial) for the purpose of fixation of Electricity Tariff as per the GO’s cited at reference. 4. The unit shall claim this concession for the power consumed on the electrical meter installed to the HT Installation bearing RR.NO.C2HT-38 for their Software Development activity. Sd/- DIRECTOR Directorate of Information Technology & Biotechnology To Asst., Executive Engineer (Electrical) BESCOM, C2 Sub-Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560009”. 7. The said Certificate given by the Director of Information Technology and Biotechnology clearly certified that the petitioner-Company is engaged in the activity of Software Development at the given address and was being given the electricity at concessional rate under earlier Government Orders dated 12.6.1997 and 24.5.2000. Vide para-3 of the said Certificate, it is also stated that this unit is available to benefit of power tariff concession treating it as ‘industry’ and not ‘commercial’ for the purpose of fixation of Electricity Tariff as per the Government Orders cited in the said Certificate. 8. However, suddenly the Respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical, C2 Sub-Division, BESCOM, came to issue the impugned order Annexure-A dated 30.11.20015 denying the said benefit of concessional rate under Tariff HT2(a) to the petitioner- Industry and raised the demand of Rs.45,45,623/- against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the said Certificate from the Director of Information Technology and Biotechnology only in the year 2011. The petitioner was constrained to file the aforesaid Writ Petition Nos.57324-57325/2015 in this Court. Facts in W.P.No.36174/2017 (Cognizant Technology Ltd. vs. BESCOM & Others):- 9. The petitioner was constrained to file the aforesaid Writ Petition Nos.57324-57325/2015 in this Court. Facts in W.P.No.36174/2017 (Cognizant Technology Ltd. vs. BESCOM & Others):- 9. The facts relating to W.P.No.36174/2017 (Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., vs. BESCOM & Others) is that even as per the requirement of the Respondent-BESCOM and the New Millennium Policy announced by the State Government, the said Company had even obtained the Certificate initially from the Software Technology Parks of India (STPI) vide Annexure-A on 03.07.2000 itself, certifying that it was 100% Software Export Oriented Unit under the Software Technology Park Scheme of Government of India. The Directorate of IT & Biotechnology also issued a similar Certificate to the petitioner on 06.12.2006 vide Annexure-D. 10. In para-3 of the said Certificate of Director of IT & Biotechnology also, it is specifically stated that the Unit is eligible to avail the benefit of power tariff concession treating it as an ‘industry’ and not as a ‘commercial’ establishment. Vide Annexure-E communication dated 20.11.2007, the Secretary to the Government of IT & BT even sent a communication to the Executive Engineer, BESCOM that the petitioner is registered with STPI with effect from 03.07.2000 as a “Software Development Industry” and is therefore entitled to electricity tariff concession with effect from 03.07.2000, still, the Respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec.) of BESCOM vide impugned communication Annexure-Y dated 26.07.2017 denied the said benefit of tariff concession and raised a demand of Rs.1,45,16,800/- and required the petitioner to deposit 50% of the said amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 11. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shridhar Prabhu, Mr. I.S. Devaiah, Ms. Nalina Maye Gowda & Mr. B.M. Sudesh was that the Respondent-BESCOM is not at all justified in refusing the said concessional rate of Tariff under HT2(a) category to the petitioners-industries and apply the commercial rates under HT2(b) category and therefore, the impugned Demand Notice deserves to be quashed by this Court. 12. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Respondents-BESCOM, Mr. B.M. Sudesh was that the Respondent-BESCOM is not at all justified in refusing the said concessional rate of Tariff under HT2(a) category to the petitioners-industries and apply the commercial rates under HT2(b) category and therefore, the impugned Demand Notice deserves to be quashed by this Court. 12. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Respondents-BESCOM, Mr. S. Sriranga submitted before the Court that the Electricity Ombudsman in the matter of one M/s. Tavanth Technologies Pvt. Ltd., vs. Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.) by his order dated 24.06.2013 had dismissed the appeal of a similarly situated Software industry after noticing the facts of the petitioner before this Court M/s. Talisma Corporation, who had obtained a Certificate from IT & BT Department only on 02.04.2011 and the earlier Certificate on 28.11.2001 from Department of Industries was only for the limited purpose to exempt the Entry tax and Purchase tax levied by Commercial Tax Department and there was no specific mention of the power supply concessional rate under HT2(a) category. Therefore, while directing the Executive Engineer to verify the fact relating to M/s. Talisma Corporation also, the Ombudsman dismissed that appeal of M/s. Tavanth Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and consequently, the Respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer, after verifying the aforesaid facts, that the Certificate of the Director of IT & BT was obtained by the petitioner only in the year 2011, sought to withdraw the concessional rate of tariff under HT2(a) category in the case of the present petitioners. 13. He also submitted that the present petitioner M/s. Talisma Corporation itself had applied to the Director of IT & BT only in the year 2011 and obtained the Certificate in the year 2011 and therefore, the requirement of ‘Millennium IT Policy 2000’ announced by the State Government in the year 2002 for furnishing such Certificate from IT & BT was admittedly not satisfied by the petitioner and therefore, the Respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer was justified in raising the impugned demand. 14. He also urged that the provisions relating to concession or exemption have to be strictly construed by this Court and the petitioners were therefore not entitled to the relief as claimed in the present set of writ petitions. 15. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the records. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present writ petitions deserve to be allowed with costs. 17. 15. I have heard the learned counsels at length and perused the records. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present writ petitions deserve to be allowed with costs. 17. It is surprising that the Respondent- BESCOM, a Govt. Company for distribution of power chose to disregard the Certificate issued by the District Industries Centre to the effect that the petitioners-industries were engaged in the Software Development business only. There is no material at all on record brought by the Respondent-BESCOM before this Court or otherwise to indicate that these petitioners were engaged in any other business other than the Software Development. 18. From the facts given above, it is clear that these petitioners had not only obtained the relevant Certificates about their business activities of being engaged in Software Development in the contemporary period when they commenced the business from the District Industries Centre but also from the Director of IT & BT even though later in the year 2006 (Cognizant Technology) and in the year 2011 (Talisma Corporation) and in none of these Certificates issued by the Director of IT & BT, he has found anything contrary to the petitioners viz., that they were throughout not engaged in the business of Software Development only or that they were carrying on any other incidental or ancillary business other than the Software Development also, so as to segregate their power consumption into two or more parts to contend that they would be entitled to the concessional Tariff under HT2(a) only partly and not for other categories falling under ‘commercial’ category under HT2(b) category. 19. Merely insisting upon the petitioners to obtain such Certificate from the Director of IT & BT in the year 2002 itself, when the said Policy was announced by the Government of Karnataka, does not demolish the case of the petitioners when they claim that their industry was through out engaged in the Software Development only. If the benefit of concessional rate of tariff under HT2(a) is sought to be denied by the Respondent-BESCOM to these petitioners industries, the burden was upon them (BESCOM) to bring on record any such evidence and allow the petitioners to controvert the same. 20. Nothing of this sort has been done by the Respondents in this case. If the benefit of concessional rate of tariff under HT2(a) is sought to be denied by the Respondent-BESCOM to these petitioners industries, the burden was upon them (BESCOM) to bring on record any such evidence and allow the petitioners to controvert the same. 20. Nothing of this sort has been done by the Respondents in this case. No reason has been assigned before this Court by the Respondents-BESCOM to brush aside the Certificates issued by the District Industry Centre in the case of Talisma Corporation in the first instance, much less, there is any justification for them to ignore the Certificate issued to another petitioner namely M/s. Cognizant Technology by the Director of IT & BT himself in the year 2006 as quoted above. 21. This Court cannot appreciate the reasons assigned by the Ombudsman of Electricity in his order dated 24.06.2013 nor by the Asst.Executive Engineer in the impugned orders passed against these petitioners. These authorities have not at all cared to give any reasonable, plausible or sufficient reason to ignore or brush aside the Certificates issued by the other Departments of the State Government which itself has issued the Millennium Policy 2002. The authorities of the Respondent-BESCOM cannot be permitted to take arbitrary stands in the matter, contrary to the documents and Certificates issued by other Departments of the State Government in an arbitrary manner. 22. There was no dispute from the side of the Respondent-BESCOM that Software Development Industry as an ‘industry’ falls within the category of HT2(a) of Tariff Schedule, but the only submission made before the Court was that since the petitioners did not produce the Certificates issued by the Director of IT & BT initially, soon after the announcement of the Millennium Policy by the Circular of 2002, they cannot be held entitled to the said concessional rate of power Tariff. 23. This contention of the Respondent-BESCOM has no merit at all and this Court does not find any substance in the same and the same is liable to be rejected. 24. This kind of typical bureaucratic attitude on the part of the Authority at the level of Asst. 23. This contention of the Respondent-BESCOM has no merit at all and this Court does not find any substance in the same and the same is liable to be rejected. 24. This kind of typical bureaucratic attitude on the part of the Authority at the level of Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec.) of Respondent-BESCOM of turning the tables of the concessional rates of Tariff on the petitioners after so many long years and raising huge demands against the petitioners, which definitely has an impact of discouraging and dampening of the industries in the State, not to talk of the unnecessary litigation landing on the Boards of this Court, wasting precious public time of the Courts, man hours and litigation expenses. Before taking such a stand of reversal of policy of the State itself in the impugned orders, the Respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec.) did not even take care to seek any approval from his own higher authorities, so that such orders could reflect a responsible stand taken by the Respondent-BESCOM, as an Organization, rather than the individual view of an Officer at the lower echelon like that of Asst. Executive Engineer. 25. This even reflects badly on the internal working and hierarchical discipline of the Respondent- BESCOM itself, where such policy decisions were also taken by the lower officials, perhaps even without the higher authorities being taken into confidence. Such a casual, non-chalant and arbitrary attitude of the Respondents-Authorities creates more havoc rather than doing any public good or public service in the matter. 26. The writ petitions therefore deserve to be allowed with costs to be paid by the Respondent- Asst. Executive Engineer in his personal capacity and the same is quantified at Rs.25,000/- for each of the petition. The impugned orders passed by the Electricity Ombudsman on 24.06.2013 as well as the Asst. Executive Engineer are quashed and set aside and it is further directed that any amount paid under such impugned orders by these petitioners shall be liable to be refunded/adjusted against their future bills in a phased manner with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of adjustment/refund. The petitioners Software Development Industries are entitled to concessional Power Tariff under HT2(a) throughout. 27. The petitioners Software Development Industries are entitled to concessional Power Tariff under HT2(a) throughout. 27. If the Respondent-BESCOM chose to refund the excess charges paid, it is free to do so, otherwise, to the extent of 50% regular Power Tariff bills against the petitioners industries, the adjustment out of the amount already deposited by them under the impugned orders shall be liable to be adjusted with interest and computation in this regard of the entitlement of their refund/adjustment shall be made by the Respondents Authorities of BESCOM within a period of one month from today, for which, the petitioners may make their claims with the relevant documents before the Respondents-BESCOM, who will determine the amount of adjustment/refund due to the petitioners with the aforesaid simple interest of 9% p.a. within a period of one month from today and costs to be paid by the Respondent-Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec.) shall be paid separately by him from his personal resources to the each of the petitioners within a period of one month from today. 28. The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed with costs.