G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THE issue that arises for adjudication in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of minimum charges of electricity fixed by the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, the Board) in accordance with notification No. 15/1/87 -31B111 -89/3377 dated 12.4.1989 issued by the State Government and Commercial Circular No. 10 of 1995 issued by the Board vide memo No. 11887/12637/SMI -35 dated 13.2.1995 on the ground that it was declared as a sick industry by an order dated 11.4.1996 passed by the Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR).
(2.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, It has registered office at Fazilka and factories in Punjab (Fazilka) and Rajasthan (Sri Ganganagar). The Board had sanctioned electric connection to its establishment at Fazilka in 1985. Supply of electricity to the said establishment was disconnected on 6.12.1985 due to closure of the factory. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 1985 Act') for being declared as a sick industry on the ground that it had continuously suffered losses. By an order dated 6.11.1995, the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) dismissed the application. That order was reversed by the AAIFR on an appeal filed by the petitioner with the direction to the BIFR to proceed in accordance with law. After about one year of the passing of order dated 11.4.1996 by the AAIFR, the representative of the petitioner submitted application dated 5.6.1997 for restoration of the supply of electricity and gave an undertaking that the amount due would be paid as per the policies of the Board. By an order dated 29.9.1997, the Chief Engineer of the Board accepted the request made on behalf of the petitioner and directed re -connection of the electric supply subject to the recovery of amount of default and monthly minimum charges from the date of disconnection to the date of restoration of supply in seven equal monthly instalments along with the current energy bills. In compliance of that order, the Senior Executive Engineer/Op. Division of the Board at Fazilka informed the petitioner vide memo dated 29.9.1997 that it should pay Rs. 14,89,451/ - (Rs. 1,64,965/ - representing outstanding dues and Rs. 13,16,980/ - representing minimum charges for the period from 6.12.1995 to September, 1997) and on payment of the first instalment, supply of electricity to the unit of the petitioner was restored. After a few days, the representative of the petitioner submitted application dated 14.11.1997 for re -consideration of the order dated 29.9.1997 on the ground that in terms of Commercial Circular No. 10 of 1995, it was entitled to get exemption from payment of minimum charges. However, the concerned authority of the Board did not entertain the petitioner's prayer and second electricity bill was issued on 16.12.1997 requiring it to pay Rs. 3,97,996/ -. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Civil suit and also applied for temporary injunction. By an order dated 21.1.1998, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka dismissed the application for temporary injunction. That order was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Civil Revision No. 2618 of 1998 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24.8.1999 with the observation that it may file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition, it has been averred that in view of the notification dated 12.4.1989 issued by the State Government and Commercial Circular No. 10 of 1995 issued by the Board, the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of minimum charges because it was declared sick industry by the AAIFR on 11.4.1996 i.e. after disconnection of supply of electricity. The petitioner has further averred that the demand raised by the concerned authority of the Board vide bill dated 16.12.1997 and rejection of its plea by the Chief Engineer/Commercial. Sales Directorate, P.S.E.B., Patiala for exemption are illegal and ultra vires to the policy framed by the Board.
(3.) IN the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5, an objection has been raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that civil suit filed in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka was pending on the date of filing of this petition. According to the respondents, the petitioner cannot pursue two legal remedies in respect of the same cause. On merits, the respondents have controverted the petitioner's claim for exemption by stating that the order dated 11.4.1996 passed by the AAIFR would relate back to 31.3.1995 because in the application filed by it under Section 15 of the 1985 Act, the petitioner had specifically prayed that it be declared as a sick industry with effect from that date. The respondents have also relied on the contents of application Annexure P2 to show that as per the petitioner's own showing, the order passed by the AAIFR has the effect of declaring it as a sick industry w.e.f. 31.3.1995. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.;