- (1.) HEARD Shri Suresh Agrawal, authorised representative of appellant -National Engineering Industries Ltd., who is present in person.
(2.) THIS is argued by him that learned Single Judge, while dealing with the application for grant of interim -relief, has failed to appreciate that the levy and demand of charges for transformation losses by the respondent No. 2 is illegal, without any authority and arbitrary. Respondent No. 2 has never objected to or denied the supply of the contract demand, which was always beyond 1500 KVA, on 11 KV Line. The supply was made on 11 KV Line by respondent No. 2 on its own and the same was never provided at the instance of the appellant because it was their responsibility. On that account, additional levy may not be leviable on the appellant. Company never insisted for supply of existing demand of 5000 KVA though the transformer capacity of which was only 11 KV. The feasibility report prepared by the official of the respondents themselves on 3/2/2010 was completely overlooked by the learned Single Judge, which proved that erection of 132 KV Line on Towers from 132 KV GSS, Nala Power House to the premises of the appellant -company was not feasible due to non availability of sufficient space and 'right of way' problem. Additional charges could not be demanded because the authorities were themselves not in a position to supply power at the higher voltage. Upon hearing the authorised representative of the appellant and perusing the impugned -order, we find that the learned Single Judge, having dealt with arguments advanced by the parties, in his discretion, has passed the impugned order in a just and legal manner. At interlocutory stage, it cannot be expected that the learned Single Judge should have given detailed findings on those issues, because main writ petition was still pending. Order that has been passed to our mind is quite reasonable and it is safeguarding the interest of the appellant by requiring them to pay only 50% of the demanded amount and recovery of remaining 50% has been stayed subject to furnishing bank guarantee thereof. The arguments which have been advanced now cannot be examined in detail for the purpose of giving finding, one way or the other, for that would be amount to preempting the issues pending before the learned Single Judge and might prejudice interest of either of the parties. In totality of the circumstances, however, we are satisfied that the order which the learned Single Judge has passed is a reasonable order, which could be passed in the facts of the present case and therefore we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.
(3.) THE appeal is therefore dismissed.;