Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1306 (JHR)

Khelari Cement Ltd v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-16

SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2009
Order The basic facts submitted during the argument today are that the petitioner's industry was referred to B.F.I.R. In the meantime, allegedly considering some kind of public interest so that the industry may be revived and continue in the State, in a meeting of a High Power Committee comprising representatives of the State Government, petitioner and the Electricity Board was held wherein the State Government agreed to make payment of certain arrears of A.M.G. and D.P.S. to the State Electricity Board, which means that the past dues would be taken care of by the State Government and the petitioner would be entitled to continue to run the industry upon a fresh electricity connection on payment of the current dues only. 2. This promise, according to the petitioner, was intended to be acted upon by the petitioner and it has in fact been acted upon by the petitioner by obtaining a fresh connection, investing large amount in the industry and continuing to pay all the current electricity dues of the Electricity Board. However, the State Government has so far failed to fulfill its promise but has been merely writing letters to the Electricity Board to keep the amount, which was supposed to be paid by the State Government, in abeyance. 3. The Electricity Board does not appear to be agreeable now to keep that amount in abeyance, apparently because the petitioner was compelled to give an undertaking that the petitioner would pay the past amount if the State Government failed to pay the same and on that undertaking the petitioner was granted fresh electricity connection. 4. Prima facie, even if this kind of undertaking had been given by the petitioner after the joint meeting of the High Power Committee it could not be interpreted to mean that the petitioner had agreed to absolve the State Government of the obligation under its promise. It could in that situation also be interpreted to mean that the petitioner legally and reasonably expected that the Slate Government would fulfill its obligation in accordance with principles of promissory estoppel, in respect of the promise which was held out in the presence of the petitioner with a view that such promise should be acted upon and the petitioner has in fact acted to its detriment relying upon that promise. 5. 5. The factual situation, namely that the promise was made much after the undertaking, would improve the petitioner's case. 6. Primarily, the petitioner seeks the relief that the State Government should fulfill its promise by making the payment to the Electricity Board and in the meantime, the Electricity Board should be directed to be more patient and not to disconnect the power supply because the State Government has failed to fulfill its promise. 7. It has been suggested from the side of the Electricity Board that the industry in respect of which electricity connection has been granted has been changing hands. In order to keep the situation intact from the point of view of safeguarding the interest of the Electricity Board, the petitioner is directed not to alienate the property or any part thereof till further orders and also not to create any charge in respect of the said property till further orders. 8. The State Government is directed to file a counter affidavit within four weeks, as prayed. 9. Electricity Board may also file its counter affidavit within the same period. 10. The counter affidavit of the State Government will specifically deal with the issue as to whether there is any good ground available to the State Government to resile from its promise which has been mentioned above in this order, and if not by what date the State Government proposes to fulfill that promise by making payment to the Electricity Board. 11. In the meantime, subject to the direction given above to the petitioner, it is further directed that the Electricity Board will not disconnect the supply of the petitioner merely because the amount which the State Government was supposed to pay, has not been paid by the petitioner o~ by the State Government in accordance with promise of the State Government or in accordance with undertaking given by the petitioner. It is clarified that the above order means that the petitioner will continue to make payment of the current charges to the Board. 12. List, this case on 28th of October, 2009 so that the petitioner may also file rejoinder affidavit in the meantime.