Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Impex Ferro Tech Limited And ... vs Damodar Valley Corporation And ... on 17 April, 2023
D/L. 6
April 17, 2023
MNS
WPA No. 5695 of 2023
Impex Ferro Tech Limited and another
Vs.
Damodar Valley Corporation and others
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury,
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Rai,
Mr. Ankan Rai,
Mr. Sayantan Das
.... for the petitioners.
Mr. Abhrotosh Majumder,
Mr. Deepak Agarwal,
.... for the DVC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the
judgement dated January 24, 2022 passed in WPA15428 of
2021 and other connected matters, it was held, inter alia,
that Delayed Payment Surcharge (DPS) could not be levied
by the Damodar Valley Corporation on its consumers on the
basis of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
(CERC) input tariff before the final retail tariff is settled by
the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission
(WBERC) for the periods 2006 to 2009 and 2009 to 2013.
However, prior to the said judgement being rendered,
in the hearing of an appeal before the concerned Division
Bench on September 30, 2021, terms of settlement had
been filed by the petitioners and the DVC (respondents)
which, inter alia, stated that the present petitioners
acknowledged the sum of Rs. 51,61,21,206/- to be
outstanding towards non-payment of electricity bills and a
sum of Rs.18,28,50,000/- being payable towards security
deposit.
It was further acknowledged that the petitioners shall
pay the sum of Rs.51,61,21,206/- "with Delayed Payment
Surcharge" as applicable in sixty monthly installments.
Accordingly, such payment was also made by the
petitioners and was accepted by the DVC. Upon restoration
of electricity connection to the petitioners on such payment,
there were subsequent instances of default in payment of
current electricity charges as well as certain installments on
the part of the petitioners, which resulted in further
disconnection of the electricity supply of the petitioners.
It is now submitted that in view of the judgment dated
January 24, 2022 as referred to above, the DPS raised for
the periods-in-question, which was acknowledged previously
by the petitioners, does not remain payable. As such, it is
argued that the electricity connection of the petitioners be
restored by the DVC upon the petitioners clearing the
outstanding charges, after deducting the excess amount
already paid by the petitioners on account of DPS.
It is contended that although negotiations were going
on, the same has not fructified. The petitioners, it is
submitted, are also willing to pay the reconnection charges
subject to the amount paid in lieu of DPS being adjusted.
Such contentions are controverted by the learned
Senior Advocate appearing for the DVC, who, inter alia,
contends that despite attempts at reconciliation, the
Authorized Representative from the petitioners denied to
sign the reconciliation statement, for which the DVC has
made a claim vide communication dated February 28, 2023
with regard to security deposit amounting to
Rs.11,60,03,000/- along with unpaid monthly installments for
several months, statutory reconnection charges and other
pending dues.
At this juncture, since certain factual disputes have
been raised by the DVC, including the outcome of the
reconciliation proceedings, the respondents are directed to
file their affidavit(s)-in-opposition within April 27, 2023.
Affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within May 2,
2023.
The matter shall next be listed for hearing on May 3,
2023.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
