Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1281 (MP)

Jabalpur Steels Private Ltd. v. State of M. P.

2014-10-08

RAJENDRA MENON, SANJAY YADAV

body2014
JUDGMENT 1.In pursuance to the orders passed on the last date of hearing, Shri Manu Shrivastava Chairman of the respondent no. 2 Company is also present. 2. The matter was deliberated and queries were made by us to Shri Shrivastava who is present along with his officers with regard to the matter in dispute. It transpires that with regard to incident which took place on 16.09.98 and based on which the cause of action for filing of this case accrued, the electricity dues were determined by the Central Level Committee along with penalty, interest and surcharge to be paid and based on the statement of account, Shri Shrivastava informs us that as on date a sum of Rs. 47.73 lakhs is to be paid by the petitioner on this count. 3. Petitioner submits that he has already paid a substantial amount of about Rs. 20 lakhs. His is a small scale industry and if it is burdened with surcharge and penalty, he may have to close the industry. He has expressed his inability to pay any further amount and indicated that he has already paid the amount of dues as determined by the Central Level Committee which comes to Rs. 10,72,524/- that apart he has also deposited a substantial sum of amount towards penalty and surcharge. He has submitted an offer on 22.07.14. Against a claim made at that point of time by the respondents for a sum of Rs. 21,77,532/-, he is willing pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and prays for disposal of the matter on such settlement. 4. Shri Manu Shrivastava points out that the dues calculated by the Board are after adding the surcharge and other amount determined in accordance with the rules, therefore no indulgence be made now. However, he submitted that apart from the aforesaid amount, petitioner has not paid certain other bills and the Respondent no. 2 Company should be granted liberty to proceed in accordance to law. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that for the incident that took place, the Central Level Committee has determined an amount of Rs. 10,72,524/- and on the basis of various deposits made from time to time, petitioner has paid a substantial amount i.e. Rs. 19.87 lakhs and is even willing to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as on date for amicably resolving the issue. 6. 10,72,524/- and on the basis of various deposits made from time to time, petitioner has paid a substantial amount i.e. Rs. 19.87 lakhs and is even willing to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as on date for amicably resolving the issue. 6. Taking note of the totality of the circumstances and considering the fact that the industry in question is a small scale industry and as on date, petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 19.87 lakhs as indicated in the order passed on 17/09/14, we are of the considered view that interest of justice would be met if a further sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- is directed to be paid by the petitioner in full and final settlement with regard to all the dues arising out of incident that took place on 16.09.98. We are constrained to pass this order because after the inspection was done on 16.09.98, a demand for deposit of Rs. 7,72,524/- was raised on 26.05.99 and on 11.06.09, the period for deposit was extended by one month. Immediately, within a short period, W. P. No. 2682/99 was filed and interim protection was granted to the petitioner by this Court on 14.06.99. Thereafter, the stay continued upto 21.11.06 when the writ petition was dismissed and immediately in January 2007, the present writ appeal was filed and on 15.03.07, the interim protection was also granted in this writ appeal. Accordingly, for the period from filing of this writ petition in the year 1999 till date, there was an interim protection available to the petitioner/appellant and all interim directions for making the deposit were complied with by him. That being so, saddling him with liability for paying the surcharge and interest for all this period may not be in the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, taking note of the peculiar circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that we do not want a small scale industry to be closed down on account of this dispute, we are constrained to issue such a direction as we are informed that after the incident that took place with regard to the electricity theft in dispute, no other case of illegal theft of electricity is reported against the petitioner establishment. 8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we dispose of this petition with the following directions :- On the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we dispose of this petition with the following directions :- On the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- within a period of 15 days from today, the respondent no. 2 Company shall accept the same and all the claims arising out of incident dated 16.09.98 shall be treated as closed and the Company shall not raise any further claim with regard to the incident and inspection that took place on 16.09.98. However, if any subsequent electricity bill is to be paid by the petitioner, the same is not dealt with by us in this writ appeal. 9. Liberty is granted to the respondent company to take steps for recovery of any such amount in accordance to law and in case, petitioner has any grievance with regard to any such claim, it would be for the Company to consider his representation and grievance and decide it in accordance to law. It may be clarified that this order shall not be treated as precedent and shall not be applied in any other case as the order is passed by us in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.