C €^ \vr^~) ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. S^U^A OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ' V3y:-:"'€^ '^b-l^;^^.".- ^•.-"w^^y ^'^^" ^S>;1 ^^ l^"' Rukmani Power and Steel Limited, Agrawal Gudakhu Factory Campus, Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh through Director Sanjay Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Agrawal, aged about 39 years, Agrawal Gudakhu Factory Campus, Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Energy, D. K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited through Chief Engineer (Commercial), Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Engineer (Commercial), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Additional Chief Engineer (Commercial), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh through Secretary WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE ^ia HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0. §644OF 2010 Petitjoner ResDondents Versus RuRmani Power and Stee! Llmited State of Chhattisgarh & Others WRIT PETITJON UNDER ARTiCLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF iNDJA (SB : Hon'ble IVir. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Ranbir Sjngh iVlarhas, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed cn 30 day ofSeptember, 2010) 1, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submlts that the order Jmpugned dated 14.09.2010 (Annexure P-1) was passed, dlrecting recovery of Rs. 70,90,512/-. Against that, the petitioner has already preferred an applicationj'ietter dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure P-4) for darificatlon regarding scheduiing of energy by Biomass piants as per order dated 15.01.2008, to the Chhattlsgarh State Electricity Regulator.y Commisslon (for short "CSERC"). The same is pending consideration. Today, being the last day, if no interim order is granted, the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (for short "CSPDCL") may proceed with the recoverv ofthe amount. 2. B©that as it may, it appears that pursuant to the order dated 15.01 .2008, passed by the CSERC, the impugned order was passed. The petitioner has immedsately preferred an application / Jetter to the CSERC for ciariflcatlon of the order. 3. In view of that, it would not be proper to entertain the petitlon at this stage when the application/ietter is aiready pending before the CSERC for consideration/modification of the eariier order. However, having regardmg to the tota! facts, It is expected that the application/letter dated 23.9.2010 fiied by the petitioner wouid be considered and decided by the CSERC as expeditiousiy as possibie, preferably withln a period of 4 W9CkS. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. ashok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge