Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Mark Steel Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 2011

Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                       1


12.08.2011
sm
             In The High Court At Calcutta
             Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                      Appellate Side
                W.P.No.13234(W) of 2011
                Mark Steel Limited & Anr.
                           v.
                 Union of India & Ors.



             Mr.Sagar Bandyopadhyay
             Mr.Tapas Saha
             Ms.Soma Kar Ghosh.
             Mr.Subhamay Dewanji    .. for the petitioners.


             Mr.Surojit Biswas          .. for the commission.


             Mr.Sakti Nath Mukherjee
             Mr.Joydeep Kar
             Mr.Pradip Tarafdar
             Mr.Joydeep Sen
             Mr.Prasun Mukherjee.
             Mr.Subir Pal            .. for DVC.



                  It is submitted by counsel for the parties that the issues
             involved in this case are identical with the one's involved in
             W.P.No.11813(W) of 2011 (Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Limited &
             Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.).

                    In W.P.No.11813(W) of 2011 an order dated August 11, 2011 has
             been passed. The order is quoted below:

                     "After hearing Mr. Advocate General appearing for the Commission,
             Mr.Sengupta appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Mukherjee appearing for
             the Corporation and considering the suggestions given by them for
             immediate disposal of the art.226 petition, I am of the view that it will be
             appropriate to admit the petition keeping the question of its maintainability
             open and ask the Corporation not to disconnect supply to the petitioners
             alleging failure to pay energy charge in terms of the impugned order of the
             Commission provisionally determining the tariff. It is to be noted that in
             some art.226 petitions moved before the Jharkhand High Court an interim
             order has been made restraining the Corporation from recovering energy
             charge from the petitioners concerned in terms of the order of the
             Commission determining provisional tariff.
                              2



     For these reasons, I admit the petition keeping the
question of its maintainability open and order that until next
hearing the Corporation shall not disconnect supply to the
petitioners alleging failure to pay energy charge in terms of the
order of the Commission determining provisional tariff.

           The respondents shall file opposition by August

17, 2011; advance copy of the reply, if any, shall be served by August 22, 2011. To daily list for hearing on August 23, 2011. Certified xerox."

Counsel for the parties have submitted that the same interim order that was passed in W.P.No.11813(W) of 2011 may be passed in this case as well.

It has been submitted that the respondents have decided not to file any opposition to this petition, for they have decided to contest all the cases relying on the opposition filed in W.P.No.11813(W) of 2011.

I am of the view that the same interim order that was passed in W.P.No.11813(W) of 2011 should be passed in this case as well.

For these reasons, I admit the petition keeping the question of its maintainability open and order that until next hearing the Corporation shall not disconnect supply to the petitioners alleging failure to pay energy charge in terms of the order of the Commission determining provisional tariff.

This petition shall be heard with W.P.No.11813(W) of 2011.

To daily list for hearing tomorrow. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas,J).

3