1 2025:CGHC:28353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3235 of 2025 1 - Nav Durga Fuels Pvt. Ltd., Through The Manager, Rakesh Pandey S/o Gajanand Pandey, Age 58 Years, R/o Village- Saraipali, Gharghoda Road, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Having Registered Office At 266, Rabindra Sarani, 2nd Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata (W.B.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Energy, Naya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Department Of Industries Through Its Secretary, Naya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Electrical Inspector State Of Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Executive Director (Commercial), 4th Floor, Vidyut Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande along with Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No. 4 : : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A. for the State Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 27/06/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ/s, order/s, 2 quashing the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 21.01.2025 as highly arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate writ/s, order/s, decaration that the petitioner is entitled for exemption from payment of electricity duty. 10.3 Any other relief/s which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the fats and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent authorities have issued notice dated 19.05.2025 and 21.01.2025 whereby the respondent authorities have canceled the exemption granted in favour of the petitioner on 10.08.2017 and the same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WPC No. 3143/2021 and this Court vide order dated 04.08.2021 was pleased to dispose of the petition while granting interim protection to the petitioner. That the respondent authorities have raised demand regarding payment of the electricity duty from year 2006 to 2024 whereas petitioner is entitled for an exemption from payment of electricity duty under the Industrial Policy 2001-2006. That the petitioner has made a representation before respondent no. 3 in compliance of Hon’ble Court order dated 04.08.2021 and the same has been rejected by respondent no. 3 on 21.01.2025. That the petitioner has been directed by the respondent for the payment of the demand so raised by the respondent authorities and in non-payment of the same by the petitioner industry the respondent authorities will disconnect the electrical line. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to set aside the notice dated 19.05.2025 and 21.01.2025 whereby the respondent authorities have canceled the exemption granted in favour of the petitioner on 10.08.2017. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner remained absent on the date of hearing. Therefore, the authorities have passed the order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The petitioner is challenging notice dated 19.05.2025 and 21.01.2025 issued by the respondents whereby the respondent authorities have canceled the exemption granted in favour of the petitioner on 10.08.2017 and the same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WPC No. 3143/2021. This Court vide order dated 04.08.2021 held in para 2 as under: “2. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner was granted exemption from payment of electricity duty from 13.07.2006 to 02.03.2015 by certificate dated 11.09.2014 and the industry claims to be set up as per the Industrial Policy of 31.12.2001. Subsequently, it appears that letters were issued to the petitioner that the exemption so granted were not correct as audit objection was raised. Eventually notice Annexure P/1 on 23.06.2021 has been issued. The prayer of the petitioner appears to be reasonable to the extent that he may be allowed to file reply along with the documents to the respondent no. 3 which may be decided in accordance with the policy of the State. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is directed since the petitioner has been served with a notice dated 23.06.2021 by canceling the exemption of electricity duty which was earlier availed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file detail reply along with relevant documents within a period of 3 weeks and in such case, if such reply is filed, the respondent no. 3 shall decide the cause of the petitioner within a reasonable time. Till such adjudication pursuant to the notice is made by the 4 respondent no. 3, it is directed that no coercive steps to recover the electricity dues or disconnection of the electricity shall be made with respect to the petitioner/company.” 8. In compliance of the above order, the respondents have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 20.12.2021 and on 20.04.2022 and on both the dates the petitioner remained absent. On 20.09.2023 and 16.10.2023 the petitioner was given the opportunity of hearing but again on 07.11.2023 the petitioner remained absent. The respondent no. 3 vide its order dated 21.01.2025 has canceled the exemption granted in favour of the petitioner, that is, after a lapse of about 1 year and 2 months. The order passed by the respondent is non-speaking or unreasoned. 9. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court set aside the order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 21.01.2025 (Annexure P/2) and the petitioner is provided with the last opportunity of hearing on 22.07.2025. 10.It is made clear that if petitioner will not appear before the respondents on 22.07.2025, the respondents are free to pass reasoned and speaking order accordingly. 11.It is also made clear that this Court has not made any opinion one way or other in the present case. The respondents shall pass the order on its own merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima