JUDGMENT :

1. This order shall also govern the disposal of W. P. No. 9654/2021, W. P. No. 9736/2021, W. P. No. 20428/2021, W. P. No. 8700/2022 and W. P. No. 2277/2022 as a common issue has been raised in all these petitions.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in W. P. No. 9654/2021 are being taken into consideration for the disposal of this batch of petitions.

3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking 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.”

4. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and owns a Stone Crusher Unit. Admittedly, the petitioner had applied for permanent electricity HT connection of 500 KVA which was also granted by the respondents M. P. Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “MPPKVVCL”) vide agreement dated 30-6-2020. The requisite deposit and fees bills etc. have also been paid by the petitioner since the execution of the agreement. However, on 22-3-2021, respondent No. 2/Superintending Engineer of MPPKVVCL has issued a demand notice to the petitioner which is challenged in this petition, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 48,62,716/- as an audit recovery has been issued against the petitioner that its connection has to be treated as a temporary connection for billing purposes.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid demand notice has been issued on misreading of Clause 4.43 of M. P. Electricity Supply Code, 2013 which is not applicable to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be treated as a temporary consumer. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of stone crushing which, by no stretch of imagination can be treated to be a unit made for construction purposes. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the agreement dated 30-6-2020 executed between the parties which clearly provides that the agreement is for permanent connection and shall remain in force for a period of two years. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the agreement and the demand notice has been issued only on the basis of an audit objection by the audit team, and not only the recovery has been effected towards temporary connection but, it has also been sought to be recovered retrospectively, i.e., from the date of connection till February, 2021 which is liable to be quashed.

6. Shri A. K. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. Power Transmission Corporation Limited and another vs. C. G. Power and Industrial Solutions Limited and another, reported as (2021) 6 SCC 15, wherein the Supreme Court has in no uncertain terms held that, in the absence of any adjudication, it is impermissible for the power generating company to issue the communication to realize cess solely on the report of the CAG. Shri Sethi has also submitted that in the present case also, the impugned notice has been issued at the instance of Central Audit Team of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Indian Audit and Accounts Department on March, 2021 which works with the Union Government. Thus, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court.

7. Shri A. K. Sethi, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon section 18 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s (Duties, Powers and etc.) Act, 1971, which refers to powers of Comptroller and Auditor