// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.435/2003 Sandplast (India) Limited, A Company registered under the companies Act, 1956, having its registered office and Factory at NH-8, Village Goonti, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan, through its Director Shri Vedprakash ...Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Secretary Energy, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Two Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 14.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Keshav Agarwal, Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Manju Dave, Addl. G.A., for the State Shri Alok Garg, Counsel for other respondents #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice (Annexure-2) raising demand towards arrears of electricity bill amounting to Rs.4,54,619/- on the ground that the petitioner is a sick industry and the BIFR proceedings are pending in respect of the petitioner Company, therefore, during the pendency of that proceeding, no recovery could have been made from the petitioner by virtue of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. The petitioner further submits that the BIFR must have considered the claim of the respondent in respect of arrears regarding electricity dues, therefore, in case the claims of the respondents have been satisfied then they should be restrained from recovering the amount raised by the impugned notice again from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is directed against the notice Annexure-2 only. The petitioner should approach the respondents and submit his objections before the concerned // 2 // authority, which will be decided by the authority concerned in accordance with the law. The petitioner may raise all points including the satisfaction of claim of the respondents before the BIFR and all these objections will be taken into consideration while deciding the objections of the petitioner. He also placed reliance on Indian Maize & Chemicals Limited Vs. State of U.P. And Others – (1997) 9 SCC 462, in support of his contention that so far as electricity bills are concerned, the recovery relating to these bills is not stayed automatically in view of Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1985, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and it should be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned notice (Annexure-2) which, prima-facie, appears to be a notice and the learned counsel for the respondent is right in raising an objection that the writ petition is not maintainable against such a notice and the petitioner should approach the authority concerned by way of objection. In these circumstances, without going into other aspects of the matter, I think it fit and proper to direct the petitioner to file a reply/objection-petition before the authority concerned against show-cause notice (Annexure-2) raising demand from him, within a period of three weeks from today. In case the same are filed with the aforesaid period, then the authority concerned is directed to decide the same by a speaking order within a period of two months thereafter. The respondents will not recover the disputed amount during the pendency of the objection-petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the manner as indicated above, with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//