Bombay High Court
M/S R L Steel And Energy Ltd Thorugh ... vs The Chief Engineer Commercial Msedcl ... on 14 February, 2019
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
(1) wp2000.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2000 OF 2019
M/S R L STEEL AND ENERGY LTD THORUGH GENERAL MANAGER
FINANCE
VERSUS
THE CHIEF ENGINEER COMMERCIAL MSEDCL AND OTHERS
Mr. B.B. Yenge, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED : 14.02.2019 P.C. :-
1. Heard Mr. Yenge, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well Mr.Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Mr.Bajaj, learned counsel by inviting our attention to the circular placed on record, namely, commercial circular No.312 dated 15.01.2019 submitted that the circular is issued on the backdrop of the order passed by respondent No.3-Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (M.E.R.C.). The perusal of the circular shows that initially order was issued on 12.09.2018 in Case No.195 of 2017 and subsequently the M.E.R.C. issued order on 24.12.2018 in Case No.321 of 2018, reviewing of certain aspect of the order dated 12.09.2018 in Case No.195 of 2017.
1/ 3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2019 23:31:50 :::(2) wp2000.19
3. Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel was justified in submitting before us that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are only implementing the order and guidelines of M.E.R.C. As the source for the circular dated 15.01.2019 is the orders of M.E.R.C, it would be necessary for us to seek response from respondent No.3-M.E.R.C, so as to deal with the challenge raised in the petition to the circular effectively and comprehensively.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that respondent No.3 is served by way of private service and service affidavit is also placed on record. As the issue is of the energy charges, we deem it appropriate to give one more and last opportunity to respondent No.3-M.E.R.C. which is certainly a contesting respondent in the present petition. It was submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the bill dated 04.02.2019 to the tune of Rs.7,20,45,530.00. The petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.6,10,89,688.00. The document placed on record at Exh.'C' show that that the bill date is 04.02.2019 and it is stated that if paid upto 11.02.2019 the amount would be 7,14,43,040.00. It is submitted before us by the the learned counsel that an amount of Rs.6,10,89,688.00 is already paid by the petitioner and the petitioner raises a dispute over the amount of Rs.1,03,53,352.75. This amount is referred to in the document placed on record at page 20 under the caption 'Debit Bill Adjustment'.
2/ 3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2019 23:31:50 :::(3) wp2000.19
5. As at this stage it is not possible for us to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in absence of respondent No.3-M.E.R.C, so as to balance equities, we permit the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.1,03,53,352.75 referred to under caption 'Debit Bill Adjustment' in the office of respondent No.2 by 18.02.2019. This deposit is subject to final outcome of the petition and keeping all the contentions raised in the petition open subject to hearing all the parties including respondent No.3-M.E.R.C. on the next date. All the contentions are kept open. Post the petition on 25.02.2019 for further consideration. The parties are put on notice that the petition may be heard finally on the next date if is convenient to.
6. The petitioner is permitted to serve notice to respondent No.3 through the counsel with an intimation of the next date i.e. 25.02.2019.
7. Parties to act upon authenticated copy this order.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE,J.] ssp/Feb.19/wp2000.19 3/ 3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/02/2019 23:31:50 :::