x“! HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava‘ J. Writ Petition No.214I2002 Petitioner Ms. Ravi Construction Company Versus ‘ 9 Respondents Mls Steei Authority of India Limited and Others (Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) f Present: - i I. Shri H. B. Agrawal. Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswai, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Rajkumar Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Satyawan Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 27-01 -201 1) Shri Sunil Otwani, who usually appears on behalf of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (In short “CSPDCL"), successor of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (ln shont “CSEB”), is directed to appear as counsel for respondent No.2 as no vakalatnama has been filed and the counsel, who earlier appeared. has been designated as Senior Advocate. I 2i Considering the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner and the I sujbmission made by learned counsel for the parties, l deem it appropriate to . . 3 finally dispose off the matter with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Accordingly, following order is passed:— I 3. Grievance of the petitioner as set out in the petition is that the petitioner enjoyed lease under a lease deed granted to it by the respondent No.1-M/s Steel Adthority of India Limited (In short "the SAIL“). In course of time, there arose a dispute with regard to executionlrenewal of lease in favour of the petitioner by the l I i Municipal Corporation, Bhilai (the then Special Area Development Authority, Bhilai/Durg) (In short "the SADA"). As the petitioner apprehended that even before electricity connection is granted to him by the CSEB, he may suffer disconnection of the existing eiectricity supplied by the respondent No.1, a writ petition was fried before this Court registered as W.P.No.340/2001. Vide order dated 27-1 1*2001 that writ petition was finaily disposed off by this Court directing that the petitioner shall approach the respondent No.2 therein (CSEB) and shaii comply with the procedure and directions vide Annexure R-1 dated 29-03-2000 (tiled in that writ petition). it was further‘obsen/ed that upon ftgit‘rtlEent of requirements, respondent No.2 therein (CSEB) shall give electricity connection without delay and the whole matter should be completed not later than two months from the date of receipt of such request from the petitioner. This Court expressed hope that the respondent No.1 therein i.e.SAIL shall extend every possible co-operation in that regard. This Court further observed that the respondent No.1 therein (SAIL) shail be at liberty to disconnect soon after the connection is given by the respondent No.2 therein (CSEB) within the aforestated period of two months. The aforesaid order attained finality and learned counsel 1 for the parties submit that order dated 27-1 1-2001 was not assailed before any Appellate Court or the Supreme Court. 3 4. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition in terms reproduced above, the petitioner claim to have approached the CSEB, upon which, he was informed l vide letter dated 21-1 2—2001 (Annexure P-9) that the petitioner is required to get the Registry Papers notarized and also produce No Objection Certificate from the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. Further case of the petitioner is that an application i i for renewal of lease/grant of lease was submitted by the petitioner before the r Municipal Corporation, Bhilai and the necessary amount of rent was also paid. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that on 01-07-2000, the M Municipal Corporation, Bhilai/SADA gave the petitioner a notice for payment of l l ‘; ’ r various dues for consideration of appiication of the petitioner in the matter of renewal of lease. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the rent, receipt of which was issued by the Corporation on 28-07-2000 (Annexure PI5). 5. While the matter stood thus, probably for the reason that the period of two A“ months as presoribed by this Court in its order dated 27-11-2001 in W.P. No.340/2001, came to an end, the petitioner again apprehended disconnection of electricity by the respondent No.1 and that gave the petitioner cause ofgggtion to tiie this petition. An interim order was passed by this Court in fayour of the petitioner vide order dated 22-03-2002 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The interim order was thereafter continued. It is not disputed that the petitioner is still running its industrial activity on the strength of supply of electricity granted to it by the CSEB on the basis of interim order which has been passed. a}, 6r From the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings and documents which have been placed on record, it appears that the petitioner has already approached the Corporation for renewal of lease. The Corporation has taken specific stand in the reply that it is the Corporation, which has an authority to renew the lease granted to the petitioner in view of the subsequent developments. ln these circumstances, to my mind, it would be proper to finally dispose off the matter with a direction to respondent No.3- , Municipal Corproation, Bhilai to take appropriate decision 'on petitioner's i application for renewal of lease. As the petitioner’s application for grant of 1 connection of electricity is pending consideration before the CSPDCL, which is i successor of the CSEB, the petitioner would be at liberty to submit before the concerned electricity SUPP'V C°mpa”y' the necessary l information/documents/renewed lease, if any, after decision is taken by the Corporation in that regard. Upon receipt of such information with regard to ,_ i decision of petitioner's application for renewa! of lease, electricity Supply Company shali also consider the petitioner's application for, grant of electricity connection in view of its letter dated 21-12-2001 issued by the Additional Executive Engineer of the then existing CSEB, Supeia, Bhilai. Until the matter is linally decided by the Corporation and the concerned electricity Supply Company in the matter of grant of electricity connection to the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall enjoy the continuous supply of electricity as has been granted to him by this Court by way of interim order dated 22-03-2002. Needless to emphasize, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision taken either by the Corporation or by the electricity Supply Company; he will have the liberty to' take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law. 7. Shri Sunil Otwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 expresses apprehension that the petitioner may not pay the regular electricity charges for consumption. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even while continuously enjoying the electric supply under the strength of interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been paying regular electricity charges. 9. The petitioner shall pay electricity charges as are payable by him under the provisions of law. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has stated before this court that the respondent No.1-SAIL claims to be the authority to renew the lease and also having authority to collect the rent and not the Corporation. 1:1. - lt would be a matter for consideration by the Corporation on objection, if any made or to be made by respondent No.1. lt is made clear that this Court has n‘ot expressed any opinion as to who is the owner of land under the lease, as this