IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

FMA 501 of 2025

Eastern Coalfields Limited

Vs.

DPSC Limited & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, Ld. Sr. Advocate

Ms. Akanhsha Mukherjee, Advocate

Mr. Nilankan Banerjee, Advocate

For the Writ Petitioners/ : Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Sr. Advocate Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Advocate

Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey, Advocate

Ms. Shreya Saria, Advocate

Ms. Anjana Banerjee, Advocate

Mr. Subhankar Banerjee, Advocate

Hearing & Judgment on : August 7, 2025

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated January 27,

2025 passed in WPA 2134 (W) of 2012.

2. Appeal is at the behest of the Eastern Coalfields Limited.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that,

appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the writ petitioners/respondent no.1 for supply of coal for a period of six

months in respect of a thermal power plant. He submits that, the respondent no.1 controls two units of thermal power plants. Only one unit is involved in the present case, namely, Chinakuri thermal power plant.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the Memorandum of Understanding does not contain any agreement as to any rate for supply of electricity by the respondent no.1 to the appellant. Therefore, the respondent no.1 could not charge for electric supply at rates not determined by the Electricity Regulatory Commission.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant approached the Dispute Redressal Grievance Cell and thereafter the Ombudsman with regard to the disputes relating to rates for electricity supply. In between, there was one round of writ petition. Ultimately, the Ombudsman was required to decide the disputes between the parties.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the order of the Ombudsman. He submits that, the order of the Ombudsman contains adequate reasons. He draws the attention of the Court to the impugned judgment and order. He submits that, the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that, there was a preexisting commercial agreement between the respondent no.1 and the appellant with regard to electricity supply. He submits that, the Memorandum of Understanding cannot be construed to mean a preexisting commercial agreement for supply of electricity by the respondent no.1 to the appellant.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, payment of electricity charged by the respondent no.1 for a given period of time cannot be construed to be an admission of liability as to the rate of electricity charged by the respondent no.1. He submits that, the rates charged were not fixed by the Electricity Regulatory Commission.

8. Respondent no.1 is represented.

9. In response to the query of the Court, as to which commercial document between the respondent no.1 and the appellant fixed the rate of electricity that the respondent no.1 would be supplying to the appellant is specified, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 answers in the negative.

10. On March 31, 1993 a lease agreement was executed between the appellants and the respondent No. 1 for a period of 20 years in respect of the Chinakuri Mining Complex for generation of electricity. A Memorandum of Understanding on October 4, 2010 was executed between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 for supply of coal for the Chinakuri Mining Complex.

11. Apparently, there were disputes and differences between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 as to whether, the Chinakuri Thermal Power Plant would be treated as a captive power plant and, therefore, a fuel supply agreement was required to be executed or not. Apparently, in order to overcome such impasse the Memorandum of Understanding dated October 4, 2010 was executed.

12. Respondent No.1 supplied el