Narmada Resources Through ... vs M.P. Paschim Kshetra Vidhyut ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3837 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

               WRIT APPEAL No. 638 / 2021
NARMADA RESOURCES Vs. M.P.PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
               CO. LTD., AND ANOTHER
                                                   --- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 02/08/2021
     Heard through video conferencing.
     Mr. A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel with Mr. D.S.
Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1.

Heard on admission.

This intra-Court appeal filed under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchacha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 takes exception to an interlocutory order dated 13/7/2021 passed in W.P.No. 9654/2021.

02. Mr. A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel submits that appellant applied for grant of permanent connection on 12/3/2020. He has deposited Rs.35.00 lacs for this purpose on 24/6/2020. On 30/6/2020 permanent connection was given and an agreement to this effect was entered into between the parties. Appellant continued to pay the bill arising out of the permanent connection. However, on the basis of an Audit Report obtained behind the back of the appellant, Department passed an order and opined that the tariff should have been the tariff attached to a temporary connection and not to a permanent connection. Accordingly, appellant was directed to pay the difference of tariffs and continue to pay the tariff as per temporary rate. This order dated 22/3/2021 (Annexure P/1) was assailed before the writ Court. The writ Court by order dated 3/6/2021 protected the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 638 / 2021 NARMADA RESOURCES Vs. M.P.PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD., AND ANOTHER

--- 2 ---

appellant by directing that no coercive action be taken against the appellant, but subsequently modified the same by passing the impugned order dated 13/7/2021.

03. Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel was not oblivious of Proviso to sub-Section 2(1) of the Act of 2005 which bars, the intra-Court Appeal against an interlocutory order unless such interlocutory order has an impact of passing a final order.

04. Case of the appellant is that the modification order dated 13/7/2021 has a final impact on the appellant and, therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision reported in 2007 (3) JLJ 187 Arvind Kumar Jain and others Vs. State of M. P. and others, followed in 2011 (1) JLJ 60 Municipal Corporation, Gwalior Vs. Leelaram Ram and others, this Court may interfere into the matter. It is further pointed out that a day-before this Writ Appeal is filed, the Department has disconnected the electricity connection of the appellant. Pleadings before the writ Court are complete and main matter may be heard at an early date. Till such time, impugned order may be interfered with and a direction to restore electricity connection may be passed.

05. Sounding a contra note, Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, submits that order dated 8th June, 2021 (Annexure R/4) shows that Audit Team rightly took objection that as per the nature of activity being carried out by appellant, he was entitled to get a temporary connection, but erroneously a HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 638 / 2021 NARMADA RESOURCES Vs. M.P.PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD., AND ANOTHER

--- 3 ---

permanent connection was given. Thus, the difference between the two was directed to be recovered and it was further directed to pay the monthly tariff as per temporary connection. Appellant himself gave an undertaking Annexure R/3 to pay the same, but for the reasons best known, did not adhere to his own undertaking. Writ Appeal is not maintainable.

06. The learned Single Judge modified the order by directing as under :

"Upon hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that absolute interim order passed by this Court on 3.6.2021 deserves to be modified with following effects :-

(i) that petitioner shall pay the regular monthly bills at the tariff rate payable for temporary connections.

(ii) the petitioner shall pay 50% of the outstanding dues as indicated in the impugned order i.e. 48,62,716/- in two installments of two months each.

In the event of default of payment as ordered, respondent shall be free to take action in accordance with law.

The order passed today shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition.

List after four weeks."

07. The parties are at loggerheads on the question whether the temporary tariff would apply or permanent tariff would apply. By modifying the previous order, the learned Single Judge has directed that presently appellant shall pay regular monthly bills as per tariff payable for temporary connections. In addition, it is directed that 50% of outstanding dues be paid in two installments.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 638 / 2021 NARMADA RESOURCES Vs. M.P.PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD., AND ANOTHER

--- 4 ---

08. The pivotal question is whether this direction passed by the learned Single Judge has any element of finality and proviso to sub-Section (2)1 of the said Act which bars Writ Appeal against interlocutory orders will attract or not.

09. Full Bench in Arvind Kumar Jain (supra) opined as under:

26. From the aforesaid enunciation of law there remains no scintilla of doubt that interlocutory orders on certain circumstances, could be appealed against under the Letters Patent. Despite the fact they are interlocutory in nature they can be put into the compartment of judgment if it affects the merits of the case between the parties by determining some rights or liabilities. There can be three categories of judgments, final judgment, preliminary judgment and intermediary judgment or interlocutory judgment. If the order finally decides the question and directly affects the decision in the main case or an order which decides the collateral issue or the question which is not the subject matter of the main case or which determines the rights and obligation of the parties in a final way indubitably they are appealable.

(Emphasis supplied)

10. In order to examine the effect of an interlocutory order what is required to be seen is whether the said interlocutory order finally decides any rights or obligation of a party or whether such order decides any question on merits of the matter which has attained finality and which may have an impact on the final adjudication of the matter. Any interim observation or direction which does not have any such effect will fall within the ambit or interlocutory order against which an intra-Court appeal is not maintainable. For this reason, the Full Bench in Arvind Kumar Jain (supra) used the expression "in a final way". If impugned order of learned Single Judge is tested on the anvil of principle laid down in paragraph No. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

WRIT APPEAL No. 638 / 2021 NARMADA RESOURCES Vs. M.P.PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD., AND ANOTHER

--- 5 ---

26 of Arvind Kumar Jain (supra), it will be clear like cloudless sky that none of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are having such potential of either deciding any issue finally or fastening any liability finally which cannot be otherwise decided while deciding the matter finally.

11. Putting it differently, learned writ Court will decide the matter finally which will determine as to which tariff : whether temporary or permanent would be applicable. In that case, even if the petitioner has paid any amount pursuant to any interim order, the rest of the amount can be settled / adjusted. Same will be the situation regarding payment of monthly bill. Putting it differently, if petitioner succeeds in the Writ Petition, we are unable to hold that Clock cannot be put back by writ Court for the purpose of deciding as to which tariff would apply and financial benefits arising thereto cannot be ascertained. In this view of the matter, in our view, this intra-Court appeal is not maintainable against an interlocutory order.

12. So far grievance of the petitioner regarding disconnection of electricity etc., is concerned, this order will not come in way of appellant to file appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for restoration of electricity connection and for any other interim relief.

With the aforesaid, Writ Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

                       (SUJOY PAUL)                       (ANIL VERMA)
                         JUDGE                              JUDGE
         KR



Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.08.02 18:22:01 +05'30'