SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(MP) 621

2006 (1) JLJ 107
K.K. Lahoti, J.
Himanshu Flour Mills Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of M.P. and others
W.P. No. 4173 of 2001;
Decided on 20.6.2005.

Advocates:
Ashok Lalwani for petitioner;
M.L. Jaiswal with Manoj Kushwaha for respondents.

Headnote:Constitution of India -- Art. 226 extraordinary jurisdiction invoked-ad interim writ obtained not to recover huge amount of electricity charges -- order of the Court to deposit part amount not complied with -- running bills also not paid -- petitioner is playing fraud and deceiving Court-petitioner is not to be heard on merits of the matter as he has not come with clean hands -- petition dismissed with costs.

       Respondents, in the intervening night of 24.3.1999 and 25.3.1999, inspected the premises of petitioner and registered a case of electricity theft and electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected. A police report was lodged on 30th March, 1999. Respondents raised a demand of Rs. 19.11,846.07 paise by letters Annexure P-19 and P-21. Petitioner preferred an appeal against aforesaid demand and filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as WP No. 2949/99. The writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated 29.1.2000 (Annexure P-24) by which the Review Committee was directed to decide the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of its presentation. After the decision of the High Court, Review Committee decided the matter. The Review Committee enhanced the penal recovery from Rs. 19,11,846.07 to Rs. 41,37,045/- as per circular dated 3. 12.1999 (Annexure P-26). Petitioner challenged the said order before the Member Level Committee. In the meantime, respondents issued a notice under section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and sealed the electricity generator set of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner entered into fresh agreement with respondents and deposited Rs. 2,73,900/- as fresh connection charges. Petitioner was also directed to file an undertaking not to use its captive power plant.As per order of Review Committee, petitioner company was to pay Rs. 4 1,37,045/- which was challenged by the petitioner before Member Level Committee. This amount included surcharge, which was near about Rs. 20 lacs.

       Petitioner submitted that out of Rs. 41,37,045/-, Rs. 22,07,115/were deposited under protest awaiting decision of the Member Level Committee. By order (Annexure P-32) dated 13.9.2000, Member-Level Committee dismissed the appeal of petitioner. Thereafter, respondents demanded bill amount alongwith surcharge at the rate of 30% per month on the balance amount of Rs. 41,37,045/- alongwith regular bill for energy consumed. Surcharge as on 9.8.2001 demanded from the petitioner was Rs. 38,73,555/-. A notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit aforesaid amount, failing which it was noticed for disconnection of the electricity. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid in this petition. [Paras 2 & 3

       Held: Considering the facts of the present case, petitioner may be having some good case on merits, but he invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Coul1 and sought ad interim writ. Court exercised the jurisdiction on 10.10.2001 by issuing ad interm writ in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.12 lacs as a huge recovery was standing against the petitioner. By the aforesaid order, on one hand petitioner was protected from coercive action by the respondents for disconnection of the electricity and was permitted to continue with the electricity connection and simultaneously respondents were restrained to recovery amount from the petitioner as the petitioner was allowed to pay Rs. 12 lacs out of the total amount of recovery and to enjoy electricity connection. Petitioner, knowing it well that the aforesaid order is a conditional one and he has to deposit not only Rs. 12 lacs but has to pay running bills, did not comply with the orders of this Court and sought extension of time without disclosing the excuse as pleaded at the time of argument but has failed to fulfil its obligation. It has also not paid running bills. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner tried to convince that the petitioner deposited security amount with the respondents which was near about Rs. 7 lacs and the respondents can appropriate aforesaid security amount towards bills. But this by itself will not be a ground to arrive at a finding that the petitioner has duly complied with orders passed by the Court. Firstly, petitioner had to deposit Rs.12 lacs and was under obligation to pay running bills. It was enjoying ad interim writ and by way of interim protection, petitioner‘s electricity was not disconnected by the respondents. Petitioner has willfully not paid the said amount and also running bills. If the petitioner was having some excuse it ought to have disclosed at the time of extension of time or adjournment of the case, which was not done. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for hearing on merits of the case, and is denied opportunity to consider the case on merits as the petitioner has not come with clean hands and played fraud by not complying with the orders and seeking extension of the time just to deceive this Court and to deprive the respondents for their dues.

       In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to go into merits of the case and this petition is dismissed. (1917) 1 KB 486, AIR 1951 All 746 and 2002 (5) MPHT 566 relied on. [Para 10 & 11

       Hkkjr dk lafo/kku& &vuq- 226& &vlk/kkj.k vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; fy;k x;k& &fo|qr çHkkj dh cM+h jde olwy ugha fd, tkus ds fy, var%dkyhu fjV vfHkçkIr dh xbZ& &vkaf‘kd jde fuf{kIr djus ds U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k& &pkyw fcyksa dk lank; Hkh ugha fd;k x;k& &;kph diV dj jgk gS vkSj U;k;ky; dks çoafpr dj jgk gS& &;kph ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k ij lqus tkus dk gdnkj ugha D;ksafd og fu"diV ugha gS & &;kfpdk [kpZ ds lkFk [kkfjtA

       çR;FkhZx.k us 24-3-1999 vkSj 25-3-1999 dh e/;orhZ jkf= esa ;kph ds ifjlj dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k vkSj fo|qr pksjh dk ekeyk jftLVªhÑr fd;k rFkk ;kph dk fo|qr la;kstu fo;ksftr dj fn;k x;kA 30 ekpZ 1999 dks iqfyl fjiksVZ nkf[ky dh xbZA çR;FkhZx.k us i= mica/k ih&19 vkSj ih&21 }kjk #- 19] 11-846-07 iSls dh ek¡x dhA ;kph us iwoksZDr ek¡x ds fo#) vihy dh rFkk bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk Qkby dh tks fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 2949@99 ds :i esa jftLVªhÑr dh xbZA fjV ;kfpdk dk var esa vkns‘k fnukad 29-1-2000 ¼mikca/k ih&24½ }kjk fuiVkjk fd;k x;k ftlds }kjk iqufoZyksdu lfefr dks vihy dk fofu‘p; mldh çLrqfr ds fnukad ls nks lIrkg dh vof/k ds Hkhrj djus dk funsZ‘k fn;k x;kA mPp U;k;ky; ds fofu‘p; ds i‘pkr iqufoZyksdu lfefr us ekeys dk fofu‘p; fd;kA iqufoZyksdu lfefr us] ifji= fnukad 3-12-1999 ds vuqlkj] nkafMd olwyh #-19-11-846-07 ls c<+k dj #- 41]37]045@& dj nhA ;kph us mDr vkns‘k ij lnL;&Lrjh ds le{k vk{ksi fd;kA bl chp] çR;FkhZx.k us Hkkjrh; fo|qr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 44 ds v/khu lwpuk tkjh dh vkSj ;kph dk fo|qr mRiknd lsV eqgjcan dj fn;kA rRi‘pkr ;kph us çR;FkhZx.k ls u;k djkj fd;k vkSj u, la;kstu çHkkj ds :i esa #-2]73]900@& fuf{kIr fd,A ;kph dks vius dSfIVo ikoj la;a= dk mi;ksx ugha djus dk opuca/k Qkby djus dk funs‘k Hkh fn;k x;kA iqufoZyksdu lfefr ds vkns‘k ds vuqlkj ;kph }kjk #- 41]37]045@& lanÙk fd, tkuk Fks ftl ij ;kph us lnL; Lrjh; lfefr ds le{k vk{ksi fd;k FkkA bl jde esa vf/kHkkj lfEefyr Fkk tks yxHkx #- 20 yk[k dk FkkA

       ;kph us fuosnu fd;k fd #-41]37]045@& esa ls #- 22]07]115@& lnL;&Lrjh lfefr ds fofu‘p; dh çrh{kk esa vH;kifr lfgr fuf{kIr fd, x, FksA vkns‘k fnukad 13-9-2000 ¼mikca/k ih&32½ }kjk lnL;&Lrjh lfefr us ;kph dh vihy [kkfjt dj nhA rRi‘pkr çR;FkhZx.k us miHkksx dks xbZ fctyh ds fu;fer fcy ds lkFk #- 41]37]045@& dh ‘ks"k jde ij 30 izfr‘kr çfrekl dh nj ls vf/kHkkj lfgr fcy dh jde dh ek¡x dhA 9-8-2001 dks ;kph ls ek¡xk x;k vf/kHkkj #-38]73]555@& FkkA ;kph dks iwoksZDr jde fuf{kIr djus ds fy, lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ ftlesa foQy jgus ij ;kph dks fo|qr ds fo;kstu dh lwpuk nh xbZA ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 3½

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % çLrqr ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fopkj djrs gq, ;kph dk xq.kkxq.k ij ekU; i{kk/kkj gks ldrk gS] ijarq mlus ml U;k;ky; dh vlk/kkj.k vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; fy;k vkSj var%dkyhu fjV dh bZIlk dhA U;k;ky; us 10-10-2001 dks ;kph ds i{k esa var%dkyhu fjV tkjh dj viuh vf/kdkfjrk ç;qDr dhA ;kph dks #- 12 yk[k fuf{kIr djus dk vkns‘k fn;k x;k D;ksafd ;kph ds fo#) cM+h olwyh ns; FkhA iwoksZDr vkns‘k }kjk ,d vksj ;kph dks çR;FkhZx.k }kjk fo|qr ds fo;kstu dh çihM+d dk;Zokgh ls laj{kk nh xbZ vkSj fo|qr la;kstu v[kaM j[kus dh vuqKk nh xbZ] nwljh vksj çR;FkhZx.k dks ;kph ls jde dh olwyh djus ls vo#) fd;k x;k D;ksafd ;kph dks olwyh dh dqy jde esa ls #-12 yk[k lanÙk djus vkSj fo|qr la;kstu dk miHkksx djus dh vuqKk nh xbZ FkhA ;kph us] ;g Hkyh&Hkk¡fr tkurs gq, fd iwoksZDr vkns‘k l‘krZ gS vkSj mls dsoy #-12 yk[k fuf{kIr ugha djus vfirq pkyw fcy Hkh lanÙk djuk gS] bl U;k;ky; ds vkns‘kksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k rFkk] cgl ds le; ;Fkk vfHkopfur çfrgsrq çdV fd, fcuk] le; c<+k, tkus dh bZIlk dh gS ijarq viuh ck/;rk iwjh djus esa foQy jgk gSA mlus pkyw fcy Hkh lanÙk ugha fd, gSaA cgl ds vuqØe esa ;kph ds fo}ku dkmUlsy us fo‘okl fnykus dk ç;Ru fd;k fd ;kph us çR;FkhZx.k dks çfrHkwfe jde fuf{kIr dh Fkh tks yxHkx #-7 yk[k Fkh vkSj çR;FkhZx.k fcyksa ds çfr iwoksZDr çfrHkwfe jde fofu;ksftr dj ldrs gSaA ijarq ;g Lo;a bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapus dk vk/kkj ugha gks ldrk fd ;kph us bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns‘kksa dk lE;d] vuqikyu fd;k gSA çFker% ;kph }kjk #- 12 yk[k fuf{kIr fd, tkuk Fks vkSj og pkyw fcy lanÙk djus ds fy, ck/;rk/khu FkkA og var%dkyhu fjV dk miHkksx dj jgk Fkk vkSj varfje laj{k.k ds :i esa ;kph dh fo|qr çR;FkhZx.k }kjk fo;ksftr ugha dh xbZ FkhA ;kph us tkucw> dj mDr jde vkSj pkyw fcyksa dk Hkh lank; ugha fd;k gSA ;fn ;kph ds ikl çfrgsrq Fkk rc mls og le; c<+k, tkus ;k ekeys ds LFkxu ds le; çdV djuk pkfg, Fkk] tks ugha fd;k x;kA iwoksZDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] ;kph ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k ij lquokbZ dk gdnkj ugha gS rFkk mls xq.kkxq.k ij ekeys ij fopkj fd, tkus ds volj ls oafpr fd;k tkrk gS D;ksafd ;kph fu"diV ugha gS vkSj vkns‘kksa dk vuqikyu ugha djds rFkk mlus dsoy bl U;k;ky; dks çoafpr djus vkSj çR;FkhZx.k dks ‘kks/; jde ls oafpr djus ds fy, le; c<+k, tkus dh bZIlk dj ds diV fd;k gSA

       iwoksZDr dh n`f"V ls] eSa ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k ij fopkj djus rS;kj ugha gw¡ vkSj ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA ¼1917½ ds ch 486] , vkb vkj 1951 byk- 746 rFkk 2002 ¼5½ ,e ih ,p Vh 506 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10 ,oa 11½

ORDER

1. Petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(i) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter and bill demanding Rs. 19,11,846.07 and declare the same void and inexecutable.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Court be further pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order confirming the enhancing the amount of Rs. 19,11,846.07 to Rs. 41,37,045/- by respondent No.4 to 6 and also declare the same null and inexecutable.

(iii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue i1 writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ commanding the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 61,525/- received towards replacement of CT/PT instrument and amount of Rs. 2,73,900/- received by compelling the petitioner to pay towards the new connection charge along with interest at the rate of 21 % per annum.

(iv) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other nature to quash the surcharge levied and demanded at that rate of 30% per month with compounding effect on the amount of Rs. 41,37,045/- illegally imposed.

(v) To grant any other relief including the payment of cost of the petition.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New It war a Road, Bhopal. Petitioner company was engaged in the manufacturing and selling of wheat products and its unit was situated at Mandideep, village Sarkiya, Tahsil Goharganj, District Raisen (M.P.). Petitioner company sought high tension electricity connection of 247 KV on 27.2.1986 and thereafter on 16.10.1989 and on 22.2.1995 for additional connection for 203 KV and 48 KY. In this regard agreements were executed between petitioner and respondent Board. At the time of disconnection, petitioner was connected with a total load of 498 KY. Respondents, in the intervening night of 24.3.1999 and 25.3.1999, inspected the premises of petitioner and registered a case of electricity theft and electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected. A police report was lodged on 30'11 March, 1999. Respondents raised a demand of Rs. 19,11,846.07 paise by letters Annexure P-19 and P-21. Petitioner preferred an appeal against aforesaid demand and filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. No. 2949/99. The writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated 29.1.2000 (Annexure P-24) by which the Review Committee was directed to decide the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of its presentation. After the decision of the High Court, Review Committee decided the matter. The Review Committee enhanced the penal recovery from Rs. 19,11,846.07 to Rs. 41,37,045/- as per circular dated 3.12.1999 (Annexure P-26). Petitioner challenged the said order before the Member Level Committee. In the meantime, respondents issued a notice under Section 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and sealed the electricity generator set of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner entered into fresh agreement with respondents and deposited Rs. 2,73,900/- as fresh connection charges. Petitioner was also directed to file an undertaking not to use its captive power plant. As per order of Review Committee, petitioner company was to pay 41,37,045/- which was challenged by the petitioner before Member Level Committee. This amount included surcharge, which was near about Rs. 20 lacs.

3. Petitioner submitted that out of Rs. 41,37,045/-, Rs. 22,07,115/were deposited under protest awaiting decision of the Member Level Committee. By order (Annexure P-32) dated 13.9.2000, Member-Level Committee dismissed the appeal of petitioner. Thereafter, respondents demanded bill amount alongwith surcharge at the rate of30% per month on the balance amount of Rs. 41,37,045/- alongwith regular bill for energy consumed. Surcharge as on 9.8.2001 demanded from the petitioner was Rs. 38,73,555/-. A notice was issued to the petitioner to deposit aforesaid amount, failing which it was noticed for disco






















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top