JUDGMENT By the Court.—By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief: “1. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund Rs. 4214181 + interest+ 6 months interest on security to the petitioner on account of cancellation of 3200 KVA load on 22.11.2014 which was granted to the petitioner on 18.1.2011 to the petitioner for 3200 KVA on the ground that no objection certificate from the U.P. Pollution Control Board was not allowed.” 2. The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are: Initially petitioner applied for load of 2975 KVA but thereafter he made a request for enhancement of load to 3200 KVA. On 18.1.2011 the Managing Director of the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Meerut sanctioned the load of 3200 KVA on condition that “no objection certificate” from the U.P. Pollution Control Board shall be obtained by the petitioner failing which the sanction of the load shall stand automatically cancelled. 3. The petitioner applied for “no objection certificate” from the U.P. Pollution Control Board on 22.2.2011 depositing Rs. 15,00/- in the form of bank draft on 16.5.2011. The petitioner thereafter kept on enquiring from the Divisional Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-1 Mahavir Chawok Muzaffarnagar as to when the electricity connection shall be released. 4. The Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Muzaffarnagar (in short “Executive Engineer”) issued a letter demanding Rs. 80,54,181/- for sanctioning the electricity load to the petitioner which also included Rs. 32,00,000/- towards system loading charges. The copy of the demand letter was issued by the Executive Engineer to the petitioner dated 3.10.2012 containing a condition that “no objection certificate” was required to be obtained from the U.P. Pollution Control Board. The petitioner immediately thereafter deposited Rs. 80,54,181/- which comprised Rs. 32,00,000/-, Rs. 549181/-, Rs. 465000/-, Rs. 3840000/- towards system loading charges, metering charges, maintenance charges, and security charges respectively. On 11.2.2013 the petitioner informed the Executive Engineer that “no objection certificate” from the U.P. Pollution Control Board has not yet been obtained. 5. Since the petitioner was not able to produce “no objection certificate” from the U.P. Pollution Control Board, the load sanctioned to the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 22.11.2014 by the Managing Director Pashimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Meerut (in short the “Managing Director”). 5. Since the petitioner was not able to produce “no objection certificate” from the U.P. Pollution Control Board, the load sanctioned to the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 22.11.2014 by the Managing Director Pashimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Meerut (in short the “Managing Director”). Since the load which earlier sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the petitioner had no option but to ask the respondents to refund Rs. 80,54,181/- deposited by him for power connection without any delay. On 12.1.2015 the petitioner enquired from the Executive Engineer to show as to where in the tariff order it is mentioned that the system loading charges are not refundable. On 3.3.2015 the petitioner sent a reminder to the Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division 1st, Muzaffarnagar that a sum of Rs. 80,54,181/- paid to the respondents by receipt No. 27/194939 dated 8.11.2012 should be returned as soon as possible. On 4.2.2015 vide letter No. 1625 the Executive Engineer allowed only the refund of Rs. 38,40,000/- towards security amount that too without any interest. Thereafter, third reminder was issued on 11.5.2015 to the Executive Engineer demanding the entire balance amount and it was also mentioned in the letter that no interest had been paid on the amount of security Rs. 38,40,000/-. The Executive engineer Electricity Distribution Division Muzaffarnagar paid Rs. 57,45,60/- vide cheque No. 013914 dated 15.5.2015 towards interest. On 6.6.2015 the petitioner made a request for payment of further interest towards the security amount for a period of 6 months but no reply was given by the Executive Engineer. 6. Sri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for respondent has filed a counter-affidavit inter alia contending therein that since the petitioner did not submit “no objection certificate”, the load which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was cancelled as it was conditional. The department was ready to sanction the load but since “no objection certificate” was not furnished, load could not be released, as such, the petitioner itself is to be blamed. He further submitted that security amount of Rs. 38,40,000/- alongwith interest Rs. 57,4580/- was refunded but the amount of Rs. 5,49,181/-, Rs. 4,65,000 and Rs. 32,00,000/- towards estimate charges, maintenance charges and system loading charges respectively are not liable to be refunded. 7. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the averments made in the counter-affidavit has been rebutted. 8. He further submitted that security amount of Rs. 38,40,000/- alongwith interest Rs. 57,4580/- was refunded but the amount of Rs. 5,49,181/-, Rs. 4,65,000 and Rs. 32,00,000/- towards estimate charges, maintenance charges and system loading charges respectively are not liable to be refunded. 7. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the averments made in the counter-affidavit has been rebutted. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranjit Saxena, submitted that for obtaining an electric connection from the respondents, petitioner had deposited total amount of Rs. 80,54,181/- which comprised Rs. 32,00,000/-, Rs. 5,49,181/-, Rs. 4,65,000/- and Rs. 38,40,000/- towards system loading charges, estimated charges, maintenance charge and security charges respectively. Since the petitioner had failed to get “no objection certificate” from the Pollution Board, the load which was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the huge money deposited by him under various heads was also withheld. He made all efforts to the get the certificate but unable to do so. For which, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It has been further submitted that the agreement was to be executed between the petitioner and electricity department and since petitioner could not furnish “No Objection Certificate”, formal agreement could not be executed between the parties. Meaning thereby that the Electricity Department did not incur any expenses in the matter as nothing was done by it except granting sanction of load on papers, as such, the petitioner was entitled to get the entire amount refunded. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the electricity department submitted that petitioner was in fact wholly responsible for not getting the “ no objection certificate”, as such, the electricity department had no option but to cancel the electricity load earlier sanctioned in his favour, however, security amount was released but the remaining amount was rightly withheld. 10. Heard Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the electricity department. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 80,54,181 for power connection of 3200 KVA and it is also not disputed that the petitioner had applied to the U.P. Pollution Control Board for issuance of “no objection certificate”. Despite all the efforts made by the petitioner, he could not get the said certificate from the pollution board. It has not been alleged that either he was negligent or had not fulfilled any condition for getting the “NOC”. Despite all the efforts made by the petitioner, he could not get the said certificate from the pollution board. It has not been alleged that either he was negligent or had not fulfilled any condition for getting the “NOC”. Thus, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not furnishing no objection certificate. Pollution Control Board has not assigned any reason for not issuing the “no objection certificate”. 12. A perusal of the record shows that for want of “no objection certificate” from the U.P. Pollution Control Board, money deposited by the petitioner towards, system loading charges, estimate charges, maintenance charges was withheld only security charges was refunded alongwith some interest. 13. It has not been disputed by the department that only after the furnishing of “no objection certificate”, formal agreement was to be executed between the parties and only thereafter, the sanctioned load would have been released in favour of the petitioner. In the present case, since agreement was not executed between the parties for want of “NOC” power connection was not released. 14. Neither it has been averred in the counter-affidavit nor there is anything on record that the respondent had actually incurred any expenses after sanctioning the load to the petitioner. Respondent has failed to show any provision either under the Electricity Act or under the U.P. Electricity Code, 2005 or Rules that the impugned amount can be withheld by them. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the entire amount deposited by him for sanction of the load. Merely because the petitioner failed to obtain “NOC”, huge amount of money deposited by him cannot be withheld by the respondent. Law does not countenance, unjust enrichment. Accordingly a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other. 15. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that petitioner is entitled to get the refund of entire balance amount alongwith interest from the department which has already been paid by the petitioner. Respondent No. 5, Superintending Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division Circle, Panchsheel Colony, Muzaffarnagar/concerned authority is directed to refund Rs. 4214181 alongwith interest @ 8.50 to the petitioner from the date of deposit of the said amount upto the date of payment. 16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.