Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 614 (MP)

The Hotel Adityaz Limited v. MPKVV Co. Ltd.

2015-06-16

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assails Annexure P-1 dated 28.2.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2, by which the petitioner company has been directed to pay amount of Rs.16,86,775/- as on January, 2015 along with connection /disconnection charges of Rs.2,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. It is contended by Shri Katare, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in the initial round of litigation bearing Writ Petition No.4056/2014 assailing supplementary electricity bill dated 1.7.2014, though this Court declined interference on merits of the matter leaving it to the Special Court to undertake the exercise for determining the civil liability against the petitioner, but the apex Court before which the said order of writ Court as well as appellate Court was put to test, passed the interim order on 29.8.2014 Annexure P-3 directing the respondents company to re-connect the electricity supply on the petitioner depositing amount of Rs.1,11, 30,027/- within six weeks. It is the submission of the petitioner that the said amount as directed by the apex Court was deposited on 26.2.2015. 4. It is further not disputed that on 12.3.2015 the electricity supply was restored in favour of the petitioner. Thus it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on having deposited the entire dues pursuant to the earlier round of litigation the respondents company is estopped from claiming any further amount for the same period. 5. Per contra, Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents company has filed a short reply and contends that the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents company vide Annexure R-2 stipulates that the petitioner is liable for paying minimum charges irrespective of not availed electricity supply. It is further contended that litigation in shape of Writ Petition No.4056/2014 and the subsequent proceedings in the shape of SLA(C) No.22380/14 before the apex Court merely related to the tenability of action of disconnection and not civil liability that the petitioner otherwise incurred under the agreement. 6. It is further contended that litigation in shape of Writ Petition No.4056/2014 and the subsequent proceedings in the shape of SLA(C) No.22380/14 before the apex Court merely related to the tenability of action of disconnection and not civil liability that the petitioner otherwise incurred under the agreement. 6. It is contended by the respondents that the present impugned notice Annexure P-1 is in regard to the minimum charges for the period from 30.6.2014 to 12.3.2015, when the electricity supply was though disconnected, but the liability of the petitioner arising from the agreement Annexure R-2 was very much alive and binding upon the petitioner. 7. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the view that neither the Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4056/2014 nor the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.209/2014 and moreso nor the apex Court dealt with the issue of civil liability of the petitioner arising out of subsisting agreement Annexure R-2, much less adjudicated upon it. 8. The earlier litigation was restricted exclusively to the issue of tenability of the action of the respondents company of disconnection. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered view that no fault can be found in the impugned notice/order on prima facie assessment of the rival claim of the parties. 10. However, the petitioner is free to assail the said notice Annexure P-1 before the statutory authority prescribed under section 42 of Electricity Act. 11. It is needless to emphasis that in case the petitioner avails the alternative remedy under section 42 of Electricity Act then the forum prescribed under the said provision shall consider and decide the matter as per law without being influenced by the order passed today in the present case. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition deserves to be and is, therefore, dismissed. 13. No order as to costs.