KAMAKSHI ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the order sought to be modified, namely, the order dated 03.09.2014 passed in MC No. 242 of 2014.

(2.) THE order in question passed by a coordinate bench appears to be a reasoned one and is based on submissions of learned counsel for parties. Needless to say, that the order was passed in the presence of both the learned counsel for the parties. But, even then, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to negotiate the payment by way of fixing installments. The total amount of arrears and dues for payment is said to be over 2.7 crore as on today. Only a fraction thereof has been asked to be paid by the coordinate bench, and even after the lapse of sufficient time since 3.09.2014, nothing has been done. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the payment by way of installments was not accepted, therefore, no payment could be made. Once the Court has not fixed the installments, there was no reason for the authority to accept the deposit of money in installments, particularly when the amount of 30 lakh of the outstanding dues is only a fraction. Hon 'ble the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013) 6 SCC 415 (Executive Engineer -II, Electricity Department, State of Puducherry & Ors vs Sri Kanaka Durga Castings Private Limited), has already held that the High Court is not supposed to direct the payment of only a paltry amount for the restoration of electricity connection. Thus, the present application has no merit, and it is hereby rejected. The filing of application alone is no ground for stalling the recovery process in the absence of interim order/direction by the High Court. The State is expected to initiate the proceeding for recovery of the same, and if not done, it should do so at the earliest.

(3.) However, later, on the persistent requests made by learned counsel, the petitioner is granted an opportunity to deposit the entire amount within one week from the date of receiving the order along with bank interest prevailing as on today. Upon doing so, the Department may restore the electricity connection. But that itself will not stall the process of recovery of the amount directed for payment by the Court.