U.P.Power Corp.Ltd.& Ors vs M/S Amausi Textile Mills Ltd.& Ors

3. Respondent No.1 is running a spinning mill and is a consumer of electricity supplied by appellant No.1. In 1994, a notice was issued to respondent No.1 to pay the dues of electricity amounting to Rs.19,15,929.20. After paying a sum of Rs.3,02,668/-, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.3503 (M/B) of 1994 with the grievance that the demand was highly inflated and the representation made against the same has not been decided. By an order dated 9.9.1994, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the Secretary of the Cooperative Electric Society Limited, Lucknow to decide the representation of respondent No.1. The concerned authority passed order dated 2.2.1995 and held that as on 31.12.1994, a sum of Rs.22,35,515.19 was payable by respondent No.1 towards the dues of electricity. However, instead of complying with order dated 2.2.1995 and with a view to avoid payment of the outstanding dues, respondent No.1 filed successive writ petitions and instituted other proceedings, the details of which are as under:

(iii) Soon after disposal of the second writ petition, respondent No.1 filed another writ petition bearing No.3735 (M/B) of 2002 alleging therein that its representative had not been heard by the concerned 4 authority. That petition was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 5.7.2002, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

(viii) When the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was taken up for hearing, no one appeared on its behalf. Therefore, by an order dated 26.3.2004, District Judge, Lucknow dismissed the same for non-prosecution. The restoration application filed by respondent No.1 was also dismissed for non- prosecution.

(xi) Respondent No.1 challenged the revised recovery certificate in Writ Petition No.78 (M/B) of 2008 and tried to hoodwink the High Court by withholding the material facts and documents including order dated 10.7.2002 passed by General Manager, LESA. When counsel appearing for respondent No.1 found that the High Court is likely to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that his client had not come with clean hands, he made a prayer that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. The High Court accepted his request and dismissed the writ petition as not pressed but after recording detailed order dated 17.1.2008, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below:

(xiii) The appeal preferred by respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Electricity Ombudsman vide his order dated 26.3.2008. 12

9. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court is dismissed. Within one month from today, the appellants shall supply to the respondents a statement containing the details of the outstanding dues. The statement shall also 22 incorporate the amounts already paid by and on behalf of respondent No.1. Within six months of the receipt of the statement, the respondents shall pay the outstanding dues in six equated monthly installments. The first installment shall be paid by the end of June, 2010 and the remaining installments shall be paid on or before 31st July, 31st August, 30th September, 31st October and 30th November of 2010. If the respondents omit to pay either of the installments, the appellants shall become entitled to recover the entire balance amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.