M/S R.K. Welds Pvt Ltd v. Punjab State Power Corp Ltd Patiala & ANR
KUMAR MANOJ 2016.03.10 15:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: 02.3.2016 M/s R.K. Welds Pvt Ltd ....Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd and Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present:
Mr. Ankit Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J The petitioner is a private limited Company. It had a large supply electricity connection with a sanctioned load of 544.640 KW and contract demand of 590 KVA, which was installed at the petitioner's unit in 1996.
A surprise inspection was carried out in the premises of the petitioner on 02.02.2010 by the team of Enforcement Staff headed by Sr. Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Khanna. A case of theft was made and provisional assessment for an amount of Rs.2,05,83,705/- was also made vide assessment order dated 03.2.2010. Simultaneously, FIR No.12 dated 03.2.2010 was registered against the petitioner at P.S Anti Power-Theft, PSPCL, Patiala. The electricity connection of the petitioner was also disconnected, which led to filing of writ petition bearing CWP No.4528 of 2010, in which the petitioner was asked to pay a sum of Rs.25 lacs for restoration of the said connection.
#2# According to the petitioner, admittedly, the amount was deposited by the petitioner and the electricity was reconnected. Ultimately, the respondents passed the final order of assessment on 01.8.2011, which was challenged by the petitioner by way of writ petition bearing CWP No.16091 of 2011. In the meantime, in the petitioner's suit, which was pending against the FIR before the Special Court constituted as per provisions of Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short "the Act"), it was held vide order dated 17.11.2015 that the prosecution/respondents had failed to prove the alleged theft on the part of the petitioner and thus the petitioner was acquitted of the offence charged with. However, the Director of the Company was directed to furnish the surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount under Section 437 (A) of the Cr.P.C.
The petitioner has submitted that the said undertaking was immediately furnished. After acquittal, the petitioner moved an application to the respondents for refund of the amount of Rs.25,36,500/-, which was alleged to have been deposited by the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by this Court. The respondents did not refund the amount, therefore, the present petition has been filed. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the excess amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest. After notice, the respondents appeared and filed their
#3# reply.
Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the Special Court in terms of Section 154 of the Act is further appealable under Section 156 of the Act and if the amount is returned, then there would be difficulty in recovering the said amount later on from the petitioner. He has also submitted that at the most, the respondents may be asked to furnish the security/bank guarantee of that amount. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case more of equity than of law because the petitioner had to deposit amount under the orders of this Court because the respondents had disconnected its electricity connection. However, the competent court of jurisdiction i.
e Special Court, has already acquitted the petitioner of the charges of theft, thereore, the respondents have no justifiable right to retain its amount, which otherwise is taken out by the petitioner from its business. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 154 (6) of the Act to contend that the respondents are liable to return the amount within a period of fortnight from the date of communcation of the order passed by the Special Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The action initiated against the petitioner was on the ground of alleged theft as a result thereof, the electricity connection of the petitioner was dis-connected. The petitioner was, however, granted the
#4# re-connection vide the orders passed by this Court but subject to payment of the aforesaid amount, which is being demanded by the petitioner through this writ petition. Since the petitioner has already been acquitted and no appeal has been filed and the order passed by the Special Court is fully in operation even without any stay, it is totally unjustifiable on behalf of the respondents to retain the amount of the petitioner in the name of filing of appeal, which is either filed or alleged to be filed. Even otherwise, if the Court takes help of Section 154 (6) of the Act, still the respondents are liable to return the amount of the petitioner, which was deposited by it under the order passed by this Court along with interest @ 9% per annum, which shall be calculated from the date, the amount was deposited till the date, it is paid.
Accordingly, the present petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner under the orders of the Court along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of realization. The amount shall be returned within one month from the date of passing of this order. March 02, 2016 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) manoj JUDGE