1 CP NO.146/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 146 OF 2000 ,In WP/4840/1999 , (With CA/2983/2001 ,In CP/146/2000 ,With CA/5494/2005 ,In CP/146/2000 ,With CA/5824/2005 ,In CP/146/2000 ) 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Through its Chairman, Prakashgad, Bandra (E), Mumbai. 2. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, through Superintending Engineer ( O & M) Rural Circle, M.S.E.B., Aurangabad. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. M/s Niranjan Alloy Steel Pvt.Ltd., Bidkin, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Shri Niranjan Shripat Jadhav, Managing Director of M/s Niranjay Alloys Steel Pvt.Ltd., Bidkin. (registered office at 201, Arihant Market, Laxman Chavdi, Aurangabad) 3. State of Maharashtra, through the Govt.Pleader, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. 4. M/s Girja Steel Private Ltd., Bidkin, through its Managing Director Shri Baba Saheb Namdeorao Galbe, Aged 29 yrs., Occ. Business, R/o. Gajanan Colony, Aurangabad AND 2 CP NO.146/2000 registered office at 201, Arihant Market, Mondha Road, Laxman Chavdi, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS CONTEMNORS 5. The Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Division Aurangabad, N-5, Cidco, Aurangabad. 6. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad-III Division, Aurangabad. (Intervenors) ... Mr.Uday S.Malte, Adv., for the Petitioner . Mr.A.M.Karad, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and 4. Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for Respondent No.3. Mr. N.S.Chaudhary, Counsel for Respondent nos. 5 and 6. ... ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: November 29, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard Mr. U.S.Malte, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.M.Karad, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent no.3, Mr.N.S.Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6/intervenor. 3 CP NO.146/2000 2. The petitioner feels that the orders of the Division Bench, while admitting Writ Petition No.4840/1999, dated 26.11.1999, are not complied with by the respondent - M/s Niranjan Alloys. Mr.U.S.Malte, after reading the order of the Division Bench submits that the Division Bench, after issuing Rule and hearing the parties on modalities suggested by both the learned Counsel then appeared, formulated points and concessions to be adhered to by the respondents in the contempt petition and also by the petitioner. The directions of the Division Bench run as under: "1. The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the Final assessment as made by the Chief Engineer ( Exhibit R/p.158). 2. The petitioner shall pay to the Respondent the amount of Rs.32,89,175/- being outstandings and amounts in arrears and amounts already billed to the petitioner but which the petitioner has not paid for the months of June and July, 1999 towards actual consumption of electricity. 3. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.17,27,835/- being the amount of minimum demand charges for the months of August to November 1999 as per clause 11 of the agreement between the petitioner and the Respondent and Condition 22 of the Conditions of Supply. 4 CP NO.146/2000 4. On the amounts mentioned in (1), (2) and (3) being paid to/deposited with the Respondent, the supply of electricity shall be restored by the Respondent within one month. 5. Prior to the supply being restored by the Respondent, the Respondent shall be at liberty to alter the installation and arrangement at the petitioner's unit, including changing the location of the meter room, in such manner as it thinks fit in order to eliminate/reduce the probability of theft of electricity in the future. The Respondent shall also be at liberty to install a new meter and an additional meter ("check meter"), both of which shall be checked and tested by the Superintending Engineer, (Electrical) P.W.D., Government of Maharashtra. Check meter may be located within 500 meters or within premises of petitioner in between distributing mains of licensee and meter. 6. The petitioner shall be billed in future on the basis of the meter (and not the "check meter") provided that the difference between the tolerance of the meter and the "check meter") is within the permissible limit of 1%. If the difference is beyond the said limit, the petitioner will be liable to pay as per the readings on the "check meter", if the "check meter" shows a higher reading. 8. The petitioner withdraws the letter dated 28th July, 1999 (Exhibit P/Page 154). The agreement for supply of electricity dated 21 January 1997 shall be deemed to have continued and subsisting notwithstanding the permanent disconnection on 29th July 1997 and the 5 CP NO.146/2000 letter dated 20 August 1999 addressed by the Respondent to the petitioner ( Exhibit T/page 163). 9. The above order for re-connection is made without prejudice to the rights of the Respondent to take action under the law for any infringement by the petitioner in future". The dispute between the learned Counsel is on the term No.7 in the draft proposal submitted by the M.S.E.B. which is as follows: "7. The petitioner may, if it desires, prefer an appeal under Condition 31 (e) as per law to the appealing authority within a period of __ days from today. If the appeal is filed within the said period, the Respondent shall not contend that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is beyond the period of 30 days as prescribed in the said Condition. In the appeal the petitioner will be entitled to contend that in fact there has been no pilferage or dishonest abstraction of energy or theft of electricity and that the entire demand ought to be withdrawn. The petitioner will also be entitled to contend that the assessment made by the Chief Engineer as per Condition 31 is not correct. The amounts deposited under (1) and (3) shall abide by the decision in the appeal. If the petitioner within the period of aforestated prefers no appeal, and supply has been restored in the meanwhile, the Respondent shall be at liberty to disconnect the supply without further notice to the petitioner." 6 CP NO.146/2000 3. The Division Bench has further directed in clause (4) of paragraph No.3, "On the amounts mentioned in (1), (2) and (3) being paid to/deposited within the Respondent, the supply of electricity shall be restored by the Respondent within one month." 4. Mr.Karad submits that his client, as petitioner in writ petition, did not comply the requisitions in paragraph no.3 of the order of the Division Bench. He clarifies, consequently, the obligation cast on the then M.S.E.B. (petitioner) to supply electricity or restoration thereof within one month, does not arise. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner M.S.E.B. submits, the second part of the contempt is, the petitioner in the writ petition was to file an undertaking to the Court and also to the Civil Court, Senior Division that on final adjudication of the suit, the decretal amount, if any, will be paid by the petitioner within two months. The Division Bench further directed: " We further direct that the machinery and the property of the petitioner company shall carry charge for remaining 80% amount and/or the amount as may be decreed in the suit referred to above. This charge will be in addition to the existing mortgages and the charges as against the factory and the property of the petitioner. The document creating charge in favour of the M.S.E.B. 7 CP NO.146/2000 shall be executed and registered by the petitioner within a period of six weeks. On failure to execute the document of charge as stipulated earlier, the respondents are at liberty to move this Court. We further direct that on deposit of the amounts as conceded above, the electricity supply should be restored to the petitioner." 6. Mr.Malte submits that this part of the directions of the Division Bench needs to be read independent of the observations in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 of the afore-referred order. 7. The order of the Division Bench will have to be read as a whole. The references in the afore mentioned portion necessarily translate into after compliance of payment by the writ petitioner in terms of clause 1, 2 and 3 and, thereafter, the M.S.E.B. restoring the electricity connection. However, clauses 1, 2 and 3 are not adhered to by the writ petitioner. Such non observation of the clauses, will not tantamount to breach of the orders. The orders will have to be read in harmonious text and texture, with effects and crust of clauses. The undertaking to which reference is given was to safeguard the interests of M.S.E.B., as its huge amount towards unpaid bills was pending to be recovered from the writ petitioner. 8. In the situation, I do not see there is any contempt committed by the respondents to 8 CP NO.146/2000 invite action under Contempt of Courts Act. Notices issued against the respondents are discharged. Contempt Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. 9. By intervention application, the Central Excise Department desired to intervene in the petition, however, since the petition itself is disposedof/dismissed, there is no impediment against the Central Excise Department to follow the legal pursuits available to it against the respondents (Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4840/1999). Intervention application disposed of. Other two applications being turned infructuous also disposed of. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/146-00cp