- (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) The petitioner is, through this petition, assailing the correctness of the order of the Allahabad High court, Lucknow bench, made on 26/7/1996 in Writ Petition No. 2109 of 1996. The petitioner got the electricity connection from the respondent-U. P. State Electricity Board on 6/2/1990 for the supply of electric energy of 1650 KVA. The petitioner had executed an agreement and also complied with the formalities for the supply of electricity in terms of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The petitioner claimed the rebate on the basis that he had established the industry in an undeveloped area but we are not concerned with that controversy. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 49.95 lakhs was due from the petitioner. On a demand raised by the Board on 4/6/1996 in that behalf, the petitioner approached the High court. The petitioner, with a view to avoid disconnection had agreed with the Board on 10/6/1996 for payment of the above outstanding amount in 12 monthly instalments and the Board had agreed for the same and given reconnection subject to the petitioner paying the amount as agreed. The petitioner after depositing one instalment, committed default in the payment. Since the petitioner anticipated disconnection, it approached the High court for the direction not to recover the amount putting forth the plea that the petitioner is a sick industry and his claim for rehabilitation was pending before BIFR and, therefore, no action could be taken in that behalf. The High court has refused to grant the relief by the impugned order dated 26/6/1996. Thus, this special leave petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the controversy is covered by the judgment of this court in C. E. S. C. Ltd. v. Bowrech Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. ' Therefore, the High court was not right in relying upon that court's earlier judgment in Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. U. P. SEB. We find that the contention raised by the learned counsel is not correct in law. It is seen that in CESC Ltd. case, this court had expressly left open the question of the undertaking given and the default committed and fulfilment thereof since that question was not raised in thehigh court as expressly mentioned in para 3 thereof. With regard to the delayed payment, surcharge etc. the direction issued by the High court was modified in para 4 and direction was given to pay the amount in instalments as envisaged in para 4 of the judgment. As far as the arrears are concerned, since the first question was not considered, this court had held that since the matter was pending before the BIFR it needed to be considered by the BIFR itself.;