1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 558/2010. Mah. State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. -: versus :- Ispat Industries Ltd. And others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 26, 2010. Heard Shri R.E. Moharir, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri S.N. Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 4. Government has on 26.05.2009 issued notification under Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 and exempted the consumption of energy in respect of the premises used for Industrial Undertaking in Vidarbha and Marathwada region of State from the payment of whole of electricity duty for period of 5 years w.e.f. 01.04.2009. On 27.08.2009 Government communicated to petitioners to refund duty so collected for period from 01.04.2009 by obtaining the approval/consent of electrical inspector. Respondent no.1 Unit did not get the refund as per those circular and therefore they started making representations and ultimately approached respondent no.3. By the impugned order dated 17.01.2009 respondent no.3 has directed petitioners to effect refund with interest calculated 2 @ 6%. This direction to pay interest is questioned before this Court. Contention of Shri Moharir, learned counsel is that as amount of duty collected was made over to State Government, unless and until the State Government reimburses to petitioner the duty could not be refunded. He states that in this situation the direction to pay interest issued to petitioners is wholly unjustified. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2 as also Shri Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 are opposing this arguments. It is pointed out to this court that the repayment is by way of adjustment and on 27.08.2009 itself Government had issued necessary directions in this respect. The petitioners never moved the electrical inspector seeking his consent/ approval for refund and that consent was sought on 11.12.2009 i.e. after impugned order by respondent no.3. Respondent no.4 Electrical Inspector has given that consent within 4 days i.e. on 14.12.2009. The facts above clearly show that petitioner were aware of their liability to refund duty and of the procedure to be followed. They have not taken any steps immediately after the requirement for obtaining consent of respondent no.4 Electrical Inspector was communicated to them. On 11.12.2009 they have sought that consent and guidance of electrical inspector is sought on question whether the order of respondent no.3 Forum should be implemented or not. It is not in dispute that the part of the order is complied with by repaying duty recovered by way of adjustment till December, 2009 and only interest part has not been still adjusted. 3 The facts above clearly show that the petitioners have no case warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Shri Moharir, learned counsel has made a request for grant of time till Tuesday 30.03.2010 to make further appropriate statement, however, that request is rejected and Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.