JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for respective parties.

(2.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, controversy arose amongst the parties, somewhere in the year 2006. It was a bill for the period 4/6/2006 till 4/8/2008, served to the petitioner by the respondent. Copy of said bill, Annexure P-2 is on record. This bill is dated 04/07/2006. Due date of this bill was 18th of July 2006. This bill is in the name of M/s. Nagpur Engineering company Private Limited. Petitioner has clarified in cause title of the writ petition itself that formerly the petitioner was known as M/s. Nagpur Engineering Company Private Limited. In this bill (Annexure P-2) other details have been mentioned by the respondent. Suffice to notice that total bill amount (rounded) was shown as Rs.1,62,890/-. If payment is delayed, delayed payment charges were shown as Rs.3539.52/-. The amount payable after 18th of July 2006 (rounded) was shown as Rs.1,66,430/-. The petitioner states that this bill has been paid. We have seen stamp of respondent dated 15/07/2006 in token of receipt of Rs.1,62,890/- (Rs. One Lac Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Only). This bill was for the period from 4th of June 2006 till 4th of August 2008 and according to the petitioner has been paid. This bill (Annexure P-2) shows separate consumption of units for type of consumption i.e. Industrial and Commercial. Rates for such user of electricity were differently levelled. Rates are obviously per unit of such Industrial and Commercial use. There was no serious dispute amongst the parties, up till issuance and payment of bill (Annexure P-2). It is contended in para 2 that in past also petitioner was charged separately for commercial use in their factory unit however, those bills were also paid and cleared by the petitioner. Some of the copies of bills (Annexure P-3) collectively are placed on record. In para 3 of the petition a statement is made that at M.I.D.C. Nagpur i.e. factory site, the petitioner is not indulged in any other activity except administrative building from where the petitioner's staff manages the industrial unit. In other words, the activity of the petitioner is running an industrial unit at M.I.D.C., Nagpur. For running this industrial unit staff of the petitioner has occupied a building from where industrial unit in the same premises is being managed. According to petitioner administrative building/office is part and parcel of the factory unit. There is no separate commercial activity in administrative building, done by the petitioner.