M/S S.R. Ferro Alloys (Fad) ... vs Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 12135 MP

                                                                1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                        WP No. 16311 of 2023
                           (M/S S.R. FERRO ALLOYS (FAD) (REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) THROUGH MOHD. SAJID KHAN Vs
                                       MADHYA PRADESH PASCHIM KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS)

                           Dated : 31-07-2023
                                 Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the Petitioner .

                                 Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the Respondents.

Counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection on the ground that present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to make out violation of any fundamental rights guaranteed under part-3 of the

Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of G. Bassi Reddy Vs. International Crops Research Institute, (2003) 4 SCC 225.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed a writ petition earlier i.e. W.P.No. 26921/2021 seeking direction for the respondents to grant benefit of retail supply tariff order 2019-20 dated 17.8.2019 w.e.f. 7.3.2018 and for directing the respondents to pay the amount of Rs.7,12,22,280/- which has been illegally disallowed to the petitioner for the period from 7.3.2018 to August, 2019 with interest from the date of accrual i.e. 7.3.2018. Initially an

objection was raised by the respondents that in the said petition the remedy for the petitioner is to approach M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission. The said objection was not accepted by the writ court. Against the said order the respondents filed Writ Appeal No. 1007/2022 which was dismissed by the Division Bench. Thereafter the Single Bench decided the petition on merits and passed the order. Para 11 of the order reads as under :-

"As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to grant benefit of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 31-07-2023 17:40:41

Retail Supply Tariff Order 2019-20 dated 17.09.2019 to the petitioner w.e.f. 7.3.2018 i.e. the date on which new electricity connection was granted to it. The respondents are further directed to calculate the amount of rebate to which the petitioner is entitled under the Tariff Order for the period from 7.3.2018 to 17.08.2019 and to remit the same to it within a period of three months from today along with interest @ 6% per annum on and from 7.3.2018 up to the date of payment."

Counsel for the petitioner submits that without adjusting the aforesaid tariff benefits the respondents have raised the impugned electricity bill of

Rs.7,79,67009/-

Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the petition does not disclose violation of any fundamental right and therefore, it is not maintainable. It is further argued that payment of running bill cannot be refused on the ground that earlier benefits of tariff rebate has not been granted. It is stated that against the order passed by Single Judge in writ petition No. 26921/2021 the respondents have filed Writ Appeal No. 1085/2023. Counsel for the petitioner states that appeal is lying on the defects pointed out by the Registry.

From the facts emerged, it is clear that the impugned current bill has been raised without giving benefits as directed by writ court in para 11 of the said order and if those benefits are granted, counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents would be liable to pay more amount to the petitioner i.e. about 9.75 Crores.

Thus, prima facie this Court finds that the impugned bill is contrary to the directions passed by the writ court in para 11 of the order, therefore the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 31-07-2023 17:40:41

preliminary objection raised by the respondent would not be applicable to the facts of the present case where the electricity bill has been blatantly raised in contravention of the directions and non-compliance of the directions of this Court, hence prima facie case is made out.

Considering the same, as an interim measure it is directed that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner in pursuant to the impugned Bill (Annx.P/1). Liberty is granted to the respondents to apply for modification or vacation of the interim order in the light of the order passed in writ appeal by the respondents.

List after 4 weeks.

In the meantime, the respondents may file detail reply.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE

MK

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL Signing time: 31-07-2023 17:40:41