ORDER

Dharmadhikari, J:- 1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

This intra-Court appeal under section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 assails the final order dated 14.9.2022 passed in W.P. No.9654/2021. In the writ petition, the petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That this petition may kindly be allowed and an appropriate writ, order of direction be issued to quash the impugned demand dated 22.3.2021 (Annexure P-1) with annexed Audit Report Para and Notice dated 13.5.2021 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No. 2.

(ii) That, any other relief as deemed fit may kindly be granted by the Hon’ble Court.”

2. The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the appellants are the partnership firms and own a stone crusher unit. The appellants had applied for permanent electricity HT connection of 500 KVA. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 30.6.2020. The requisite deposit and fees etc. have also been deposited by the appellants at the time of execution of the agreement. However, on the basis of some report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) conducted at different places, demand notice was issued to the appellants, which was challenged in the writ petitions whereby the appellants were made liable to pay the amount as per audit recovery and that the connections granted were treated as temporary connection for billing purposes. The learned single Judge while deciding the batch of writ petitions held as under:-

“10] On due consideration of submissions and perusal of the documents filed on record as also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited (Supra), this Court finds that so far as the audit recovery on the basis of the report of Comptroller and Auditor General of India is concerned, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held as under:-

“60. As observed above, UPPTCL demanded and partly realized cess on the supply Contract, solely on the basis of report of the CAG. In our considered view, in the absence of any adjudication, it was impermissible for UPPTCL to issue the impugned communication to realize cess solely on the basis of the report of the CAG.

61. In Centre of Public Litigation v. Union of India reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1, this Court held that when CAG report was subject to scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee and the Joint Parliamentary Committee, it would not be proper to refer to to findings and conclusions contained therein. In this context, reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India and Others reported in where this Court held:-

“56. CAG may be right in pointing out that public monies are to be applied for the purposes prescribed by Parliament and that extravagance and waste are minimised and that sound financial practices are encouraged in estimating and contracting, and in administration generally.

67. The question that is germane for consideration in this case is whether this Court can grant reliefs by merely placing reliance on the CAG's Report. The CAG's Report is always subject to parliamentary debates and it is possible that PAC can accept the ministry's objection to the CAG Report or reject the report of the CAG. The CAG, indisputably is an independent constitutional functionary, however, it is for Parliament to decide whether after receiving the report i.e. PAC to make its comments on the CAG's Report.” (Emphasis supplied)

11] In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid finding recorded by the Supreme Court applies mutatis-mutandis to the facts of the present case as well. It is also found that although the demand has been raised by taking exception to the agreement executed between the parties itself, holding that the connection granted to the petitioner ought to have been temporary in nature instead to perma