JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2432 of 2007 whereby the writ petition seeking quashing of the memo dated 29.12.2003 which was further issued on 22.01.2007, was dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/writ petitioner is that the petitioner is an establishment engaged in the manufacturing of steel and is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act in the year 1998. The appellant/writ petitioner establishment was declared as a sick industry under the provisions of the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, SICA 1985). The appellant at the time of establishment of its manufacturing unit was entitled for exemption for payment of electricity duty for the initial period of five years. Thereafter, the appellant establishment was liable to pay electricity duty. Accordingly, vide order dated 29.12.2003 (Annexure P-6) a demand was raised by the respondents for payment of electricity duty. Meanwhile, the appellant establishment was declared sick vide order dated 10. 06.1998 by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short, the BIFR). Thereafter, the proceedings for revival was pending before BIFR and finally the appellant establishment on its own request was discharged from the purview of SICA 1985. The appellant was discharged from the proceedings under the SICA 1985 on account of the company getting revived and all the accumulated loss having wiped off and the net worth also had become positive. The appellant, in the meanwhile had paid the entire principal amount. The respondent, subsequently, vide order memo dated 22.01.2007 (Annexure P-13) raised a fresh demand claiming interest on the electricity duty to the tune of Rs.3,13,45,231/-. It was this notice dated 22.01.2007 which led to the filing of the writ petition.

3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner challenged the two orders i.e. 29.12.2003 (Annexure P/6) and 22.01.2007 (Annexure P/13) and contended that respondents could not have claimed electricity duty from the appellant-Company for the said period during which they were declared sick and the proceedings were pending before the BIFR. According to the appellant, it was entitled for protection provided under Section 22 of the SICA 1985.

4. The said petition was duly contested by the respondents stating that that even if the appellant had the protection under the SICA 1985 or for that matter, the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upakram (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978 (for short, the Act of 1978), the protection would be only to the extent of not taking any coercive steps for recovery during the period they were sick. That by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled for the waiver off the entire liability itself.

5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. Hence, this appeal.

6. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aman Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred in law by dismissing the writ petition and by not considering and appreciating the fact that the impugned demand notice dated 29.12.2003 and 22.01.2007 demanding electricity duty along with interest for the period from April 1999 till March 2004 was not only arbitrary and illegal but also in serious violation of the provisions of Section 22 of SICA 1985 as well as the provisions of Section 3 to 6 of the Act of 1978 in as much as the fact that impugned demand notices with regard to payment of electricity duty along with interest was raised during the period when the appellant-Company was declared a sick industry in terms of Section 3 (1) (o) of the SICA 1985 and was relief undertaking Company during the period from 10.06.1998 to 28. 06.2005, as such, in view of the aforesaid provisions of