M/s. G.R.Cables Ltd., A Company registered under v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce

Counsel for the petitioner : Shri M.S. Ramachandra Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Industries Counsel for respondent No.4 : Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes October 12, 2007 Per G.S.Singhvi, CJ This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner, who has been waiting for last more than 11 years for final decision on the application made for grant of incentives of sales tax deferment in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 108 dated 20-5-1996. It is borne out from the record that the application made by the petitioner for grant of incentives was rejected in 1997 but that decision was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9159 of 1998 with a direction to the competent authority to reconsider the application for extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No. 108. The petitioner’s complaint is that even though a period of one year and ten months has elapsed, the competent authority has not passed appropriate order on its application for grant of the benefit of deferment. Learned Government Pleader for Industries fairly admits that there has been undue delay in deciding the application of the petitioner and he says that appropriate order on the petitioner’s application will now be passed within a maximum period of two weeks. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1) The competent authority shall take appropriate decision on the petitioner’s application for grant of benefit in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 108 dated 20-5-1996 within two weeks. The decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner at the end of two weeks period. 2) If the competent authority fails to communicate the decision taken on the petitioner’s application, then the latter shall be entitled to apply for revival of the writ petition. In that, the Court will have option to initiate appropriate action by assuming that the concerned authority has intentionally avoided compliance of the direction given by the Court in Writ Petition No. 9159 of 1998. G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. October 12, 2007 Note: The Court Officer is directed to give attested copies of this order to the learned counsel for the parties. B/O