Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43489 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S S.R.S Drawing Corporation Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bidhan Chandra Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of fabrics in the powerloom sector. Its grievance is that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has taken a policy decision that to encourage the powerloom sector and its weavers electricity be supplied to them on flat rate. In this regard a Government Order dated 14th June, 2006 was issued, which deals with powerloom sector. However, the respondents in utter disregard to the Government policy and the order issued are denying the said benefit to the petitioner on wholly non-justifiable reason. Hence, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition for the following reliefs:
"(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to restore electricity supply of the petitioner and provide the benefit of supply of electricity to the Petitioner on flat rate and accept the payment of electricity charge at flat rate as per G.O. dated 14.6.2006 read with order dated 11.7.2007 and rate schedule LMV-6 notified from time to time."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government order as well as the order of the first respondent dated 10th October, 2018 clearly provide that in the powerloom sector whether a unit is running shuttleless or with shuttle has no difference and both of them should be treated alike.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 04th December, 2018 passed in a similar matter in Writ-C No. 39557 of 2018 (Mohd. Usman Ansari and another v. State of U.P. and others). The relevant part of the order reads as under:
"Considering the facts, we dispose of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation raising his grievance annexing therewith all supporting documents as well as a copy of the writ petition and its annexures before respondent no. 1, with the further direction to the said authority to consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and the policy of the State Government expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of making of the representation.
It is directed that till the disposal of the representation, as directed aforesaid or till the expiry of three months from today whichever is earlier, the supply of electrical energy to the petitioner shall be continued.
We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the claim being made by the petitioner and the same shall be decided by the authority concerned on its own merits.
The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."
This Court in a similar matter in Writ – C No. 1033 of 2019 (M/S Anjali Handloom vs.State Of U P And 2 Others) has also relied on the said order.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as the learned Standing Counsel.
Considering the issue raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that at the first instance the matter be considered by the third respondent in respect of applicability of the Government order dated 14th June, 2006 and 11th July, 2007 referred herein above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction upon the third respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from the date of communication of this order. Till the decision is taken or till the expiry of three months, supply of electrical energy to the petitioner shall continue.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 Puspendra