The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :
(i) Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order and direct the respondents to restore the electricity connection to the petitioner which was disconnected on 10.07.2014.
(ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writ direction or order and call for the records leading to Exhibits P7 and quash the same as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order and direct the respondents to consider Exhibits P6 and P8 representation within a stipulated time.
(iv) grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case
2. When the matter came up for consideration 05.08.2014, the following interim order was passed :
“Standing counsel for respondents will file statement/affidavit.
2. Post after 2 weeks.
3. Meanwhile there will be an interim direction to restore electric supply to the petitioner company, subject to condition of the petitioner paying charges due for the month of 5/2014 (Rs.5,90,128/- mentioned in Ext. P7). There petitioner shall also make payment of the charges for the month of 6/2014 as and when it becomes due. The above direction will be subject to further orders if any passed by the BIFR.
4. It is made clear that the respondents will be at liberty to raise all the claims with respect to payment of other amounts if any due, before the BIFR, on the next posting date of the case.”
Thereafter in I.A. No. 11179 of 2014, a detailed interim order was passed on 27.08.2014, modifying the interim order dated 05.08.2014 in the following terms :
“8. Hence the interim order passed on 05.08.2014 will stand modified as follows :
(i) The petitioners herein/respondents in the WP(C) will restore electricity supply, subject to the petitioner company making further payment a sum of Rs.3,00,432/- towards the amount due under the monthly bill for the month of 7/2014. The reconnection shall be effected forthwith on receipt of the said amount.
(ii) The petitioner shall make further payment of sums of Rs.10,00,000/- in 2 equal instalments of 5,00,000/- each, on or before 30.09.2014, and 31.10.2014 along with payment of regular monthly bills due with respect to those 2 months on the respective due dates.
It is made clear that the above arrangement with respect to payments in made purely on a provisional basis subject to further orders of the BIFR in the matter.
Post after a month.”
3. Subsequently, when the matter came up for consideration on 14.11.2014, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the respondent Board that the regular bills were not being satisfied by the petitioner from September onwards and it was in the said circumstances that the disconnection has been effected. The course and events leading to disconnection are also discernible from paragraph 6 of the interim order dated 27.08.2014 in I.A. No. 11179 of 2014, which reads as follows :
“6. Learned counsel for the petitioner company pointed out that, unless the company in put to work it is not possible for remittance of any further amounts. More over it is pointed out that about 200 workers, most of them women, are put to extreme difficulties due to closing down of the company. It is also pointed out that the BIFR is not sitting at preset because reconstitution of the Board is pending finalization. Under such circumstances, he seeks indulgence of this Court in ordering re-connection of supply facilitating functioning of the factory, on the specific undertaking that electricity charges due for all the current months in future will be paid promptly, until the matter is further considered by the BIFR, and that rest of the disputes can be resolved in accordance with the decision which will be taken by the BIFR. The above request is stiffly opposed from the side of the Senior counsel contending that huge amounts due to the Board in arrears. “ In spite of maximum indulgence shown, the petitioner has failed to make to use of the opportunity and as such, this is not a fit case to call for interference, submits the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Board. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has not honoured the commitment. In the said circumstances, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedy, if any, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd