Allahabad High Court
Chandra Fabrics Private Limited vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 January, 2020
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1798 of 2020 Petitioner :- Chandra Fabrics Private Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Krishna Singh,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1. Perused the record.
The nature of the order that we are going to pass, no notice need be issued to respondent no.4 at this stage.
Present petition has been filed invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 10.12.2019 produced as Annexure 15 to the writ petition, whereby the respondents have disconnected the electricity supply of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has got constructed industrial unit at Plot No.- G210 whereas the plot allotted to him by the development authority was Plot No.- G211 and the electricity connection was granted to the petitioner for the industrial unit to be run on Plot No.-G211 in the category of LMV6.
Assailing the order impugned, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that it is due to inadvertent mistake as the possession of the open vacant land was handed over by the development authority to the petitioner, he got constructed his industrial unit and set up on Plot No.-G210 instead of Plot No.-G211 and in this regard he was served with the notice and then dispute arose before the development authority qua the construction standing on Plot No.-G210. He had earlier been served with notice for removal of constructions and so he filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ C No.-12791 of 2019 in which this Court, vide order dated 12.04.2019, had made following observations:
"In our opinion, even if the notice has been issued to the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner to submit its reply/objection to the notice.
We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner submits its reply/objection to the show cause notice dated 15.03.2019 before the respondent no.3, Project Officer, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, Tronica City Project, Ghaziabad within 15 days from today alongwith the certified copy of this order, the respondents no.3 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of one month.
Subject to the compliance of the direction given above, notice dated 15.03.2019 shall remain in abeyance till the petitioner's reply/objection is disposed of by the respondent no.3."
(Emphasis added) The petitioner, thereafter, represented the matter which ultimately came to be disposed of on 16.7.2019 with an observation that for the purpose of change of plot number qua the construction standing on the plot of the petitioner which is the head office which is vested with the power to take decision in the matter. As a consequence to the order passed by the Project Officer on 16.7.2019, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal on 8.11.2019 which is pending consideration before the authority.
The argument advanced, therefore, is that once an appeal/representation is still pending as a consequence to the order passed by the Project Officer, the Electricity Department should not have preempted the issue in passing the order dated 10.12.2019 because if the order is sustained during pendency of the appeal, it will result in complete closure of a functional industrial unit of the petitioner, bringing it to a great loss and also to those who are bread earners working in the unit without benefiting any third party.
Per contra, Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 has justified the order for the reasons assigned therein.
Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 states that he has no objection if the direction be issued to the competent authority to decide the matter within a time bound period strictly in accordance with law.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, what we primafacie find in the case in hand is, that dispute is engaging attention of the competent authority, namely, respondent no.5 in the pending appeal/representation preferred as a consequence to the order passed by the Project Officer and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-Electricity Department who have come to cancel the disconnection of electricity supply, ought to have awaited the decision of the authority, knowingly well that this Court had earlier granted indulgence to the petitioner.
We find that the temporary disconnection has taken place only on the ground that the petitioner had obtained connection with respect to Plot No.-G211 whereas he is running the industrial unit on Plot No.-G210. As we have discussed petitioner's stand above that it was a mistake inadvertently committed by the petitioner due to the possession handed over by the authority of the Plot which ultimately turned out to be Plot No.-G210 instead of Plot No.-G211 and the petitioners are otherwise not guilty for witholding any payment of electricity dues towards the Electricity Department, we find it appropriate to suspend the order dated 10.12.2019, until the decision is taken by the appropriate authority-respondent no.5 in the pending matter of the petitioner. It is directed that the respondent-Executive Engineer shall forthwith restore the electricity supply to the industrial unit of the petitioner as directed hereinabove, subject to the conditions as enumerated hereinabove regarding final decision of the pendency of the appeal provided of course the petitioner continues to deposit the regular electricity bill.
In the above facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to issue yet another direction to respondent no.5 to decide the pending matter of the petitioner regarding change of plot number from Plot No.-G210 to Plot No.-G211 qua the construction standing of the industrial unit of the petitioner qua expeditiously. Accordingly we direct the authority to decide the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from today, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, by reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law.
We further observe that since, respondent no.5 is represented before this Court it will not be technically necessary to supply the certified copy of the order for start of the proceeding as directed hereinabove before respondent no.5 and restoration of supply of electricity to the industrial unit of the petitioner.
The petitioner shall supply the certified copy of the order formally immediately after its issuance.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2020/Deepika