IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA M/s. Alchem International Private Limited Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigan (DHBVN) through Managing Director CORAM Present : KULDEEP TIWARI 1. the Constitution of India upon the the electricity connection of the petitioner due procedure for, to command loss borne by 16.04.2025 till 28.04.2025, to the tune of 2. endeavour the instant petition has no other remedy for redressal of its grievances, except to file th petition at hand. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/s. Alchem International Private Limited Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigan (DHBVN) through Managing Director & another CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. D. P. Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) Through the instant petition, the Constitution of India, prayer is made for issuance of the respondent-distribution licensee to electricity connection of the petitioner procedure, as established by law. Further, a direction command the respondent-distribution loss borne by the petitioner-company, for 16.04.2025 till 28.04.2025, to the tune of The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has endeavours to impress upon this Court regarding the maintainability of the instant petition seeking a Mandamus has no other remedy for redressal of its grievances, except to file th petition at hand. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14670 of 2025 Date of Decision : 21.05.2025 M/s. Alchem International Private Limited …. Petitioner Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigan (DHBVN) through Managing …. Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Advocate, with Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate, filed under Articles 226/227 of prayer is made for issuance of a Mandamus distribution licensee to refrain from disconnecting electricity connection of the petitioner-company, without following . Further, a direction is also prayed distribution licencee to compensate the , for the period commencing from 16.04.2025 till 28.04.2025, to the tune of `8.60 crores approximately. enior counsel for the petitioner has made all to impress upon this Court regarding the maintainability of seeking a Mandamus. He asserts that the petitioner has no other remedy for redressal of its grievances, except to file the 5 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigan (DHBVN) through Managing Articles 226/227 of a Mandamus refrain from disconnecting without following is also prayed to compensate the from all to impress upon this Court regarding the maintainability of that the petitioner e AMIT KUMAR 2025.06.11 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.14670 of 2025 3. counsel for the petitioner petition deserves to be dismissed, for the hereinafter recorded reasons. 4. payment of electricity the learned ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, in the said appeal numerous orders to ensure that petitioner the matter in issue the effective order order for restoration of the power supply to the plant of the petitioner company hereinafter: 5. petitioner Tribunal, vide order dated dated 21.04.2025 CWP No.14670 of 2025 -2- This Court finds the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner to be totally misconceived petition deserves to be dismissed, for the hereinafter recorded reasons. To begin with, the statutory appeal payment of electricity and other charges, learned Appellate Tribunal for Electricity ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, in the said appeal numerous orders to ensure that the petitioner-company is not disconnected. Therefore, i the matter in issue, in its right perspective, the effective orders passed by the Tribunal. order for restoration of the power supply to the plant of the petitioner was passed, and the relevant portion hereinafter:- “The power supply to the Appellant shall be restored forthwith immediately upon deposit of the above mentioned amount i.e. Rs. One Crore which will be received by the Respondent Discom without prejudice to the contentions to claim the entire arrears as mentioned above.” Thereafter, on account of non petitioner-company, its appeal was dismissed for non Tribunal, vide order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure P-25), it was ourt finds the submissions made by the learned Senior totally misconceived, and thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed, for the hereinafter recorded reasons. he statutory appeal, with regard to the due is pending consideration before for Electricity (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, in the said appeal, has already passed the electricity connection of the Therefore, in order to appreciate right perspective, it would be apposite to refer to passed by the Tribunal. On 28.01.2020, a specific order for restoration of the power supply to the plant of the petitioner- relevant portion thereof is extracted “The power supply to the Appellant shall be restored forthwith immediately upon deposit of the above mentioned amount i.e. Rs. One Crore which will be received by the Respondent Discom without ce to the contentions to claim the entire arrears as mentioned above.” reafter, on account of non-appearance of the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution by the (Annexure P-23). But, vide order it was restored. However, in the learned Senior thus, the to the due is pending consideration before (hereinafter referred to as, already passed of the n order to appreciate refer to a specific - is extracted “The power supply to the Appellant shall be restored forthwith immediately upon deposit of the above mentioned amount i.e. Rs. One Crore which will be received by the Respondent Discom without ce to the contentions to claim the entire appearance of the by the vide order restored. However, in the AMIT KUMAR 2025.06.11 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.14670 of 2025 interregnum, disconnected by the fetching grievance from the act of the petitioner Tribunal, which was disposed of in its favour P-28), specifically clarifying that consequent upon the restoration of the appeal, the interim order dated 28.01.2020 Therefore, it would be apposite to refer to the order dated 6. the petitioner Accordingly, the Tribunal of the electricity connection, which is clearly reflected in the order dated 28.04.2025 hereinafter CWP No.14670 of 2025 -3- interregnum, the electricity connection of the petitioner disconnected by the respondent-distribution licen fetching grievance from the act of the respondent the petitioner-company had filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal, which was disposed of in its favour , specifically clarifying that consequent upon the restoration of the ppeal, the interim order dated 28.01.2020 Therefore, it would be apposite to refer to the order dated 22.04.2025:- “Mr. D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would restoration of the appeal, the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 28.01.2020 would stand revived and no order, in violation of the said interim order, can be passed by the respondents till the said interim order remains in the main appeal is disposed of. We are in agreement with this submission urged on behalf of the Appellant” However, when the said clarification the petitioner-company was again propell Accordingly, the Tribunal had issued a categoric of the electricity connection, which is clearly reflected in the order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-32), and the relevant extract is reproduced hereinafter:- “It is clear that respondents are bound to comply with the said order and their failure will be treated as non compliance of the order of this Tribunal. When the matter was listed today, as per the direction in the last order, it is the electricity connection of the petitioner-company was distribution licencee. In this way, the respondent-distribution licencee, company had filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal, which was disposed of in its favour on 22.04.2025 (Annexure , specifically clarifying that consequent upon the restoration of the ppeal, the interim order dated 28.01.2020 (supra), would stand revived. Therefore, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant portion of the Mr. D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would submit that, consequent on restoration of the appeal, the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 28.01.2020 would stand revived and no order, in violation of the said interim order, can be passed by the respondents till the said interim order remains in force or till the main appeal is disposed of. We are in agreement with this submission urged on behalf of the Appellant” clarification did not yield any fruit, propelled to approach the Tribunal. categoric direction for restoration of the electricity connection, which is clearly reflected in the order dated , and the relevant extract is reproduced It is clear that respondents are bound to comply with the said order and their failure will be treated as non- compliance of the order of this Tribunal. When the matter was listed today, as per the direction in the last order, it is ompany was . In this way, distribution licencee, company had filed a miscellaneous application before the (Annexure , specifically clarifying that consequent upon the restoration of the , would stand revived. relevant portion of the Mr. D.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing submit that, consequent on restoration of the appeal, the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 28.01.2020 would stand revived and no order, in violation of the said interim order, can be passed by the force or till the main appeal is disposed of. We are in agreement with , . direction for restoration of the electricity connection, which is clearly reflected in the order dated , and the relevant extract is reproduced It is clear that respondents are bound to comply with - compliance of the order of this Tribunal. When the matter was listed today, as per the direction in the last order, it is AMIT KUMAR 2025.06.11 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.14670 of 2025 7. petitioner was left with no other option, but to again rake up the matter before the Tribunal. learned counsel for the respondent the electricity supply of the petitioner forthwith. Accordingly, on 29.04.2025 was passed CWP No.14670 of 2025 -4- submitted by the Respondents that they have not complied with the order as the appeal is not maintainable. The same argument was also raised before Hon'ble Court matter was heard on 22nd April, 2025. We find it appropriate that non-compliance of the said order deserves into with seriousness of the matter of not abiding by the orders of this Court. Respondent No. 1 may take instructions on this, failure to which, action may be taken against them for non-compliance of the order. The Appeal will be heard subsequent to the compliance of the order in this regard. However, since the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner was left with no other option, but to again rake up the matter before the Tribunal. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the respondent-distribution licencee had assured that the electricity supply of the petitioner . Accordingly, on 29.04.2025 (Annexure P was passed by the Tribunal:- “Today when the matter was called for hearing, Ms. Nikita Choukse, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 instructions, submitted that the Electricity will be restored by today. Accordingly, we find that the matter is ready for hearing. Mr. D. P. Singh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant seeks sometime to file a short note. As requested, a short note on the issue shall be filed by the contesting parties before the next date of hearing with advance copy of the other side. xx xx xx xx” ents that they have not complied with the order as the appeal is not maintainable. The same argument was also raised before Hon'ble Court-l when the April, 2025. We find it appropriate compliance of the said order deserves to be looked into with seriousness of the matter of not abiding by the orders of this Court. Respondent No. 1 may take instructions on this, failure to which, action may be taken against them compliance of the order. The Appeal will be heard quent to the compliance of the order in this regard.” However, since the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner was left with no other option, but to again rake up the matter uring the course of hearing before the Tribunal, distribution licencee had assured that the electricity supply of the petitioner-company would be restored, (Annexure P-33), following order when the matter was called for hearing, Ms. Nikita Choukse, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, on instructions, submitted that the Electricity will be restored by today. Accordingly, we find that the matter is ready for rned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant seeks sometime to file a short note. As requested, a short note on the issue shall be filed by the contesting parties before the next date of hearing with advance copy of the other side. ” ents that they have not complied with the order as the appeal is not maintainable. The same l when the April, 2025. We find it appropriate to be looked into with seriousness of the matter of not abiding by the orders of this Court. Respondent No. 1 may take instructions on this, failure to which, action may be taken against them compliance of the order. The Appeal will be heard However, since the said direction was not complied with, the petitioner was left with no other option, but to again rake up the matter , distribution licencee had assured that , , following order when the matter was called for hearing, Ms. , on instructions, submitted that the Electricity will be restored by today. Accordingly, we find that the matter is ready for rned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant seeks sometime to file a short note. As requested, a short note on the issue shall be filed by the contesting parties before the next date of hearing with AMIT KUMAR 2025.06.11 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.14670 of 2025 8. reflects that the petitioner remedy, and its Tribunal. is still subjudice before the Tribunal, required to be issued. 9. made in the instant petition. However, as payment of compensation on account of disconnection of electricity connection is question of fact, the relevant provision respondent consideration before the Tribunal. Thus, the prayer in question is, indeed pre-mature. 10. petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. that dismissal of the petition would pending before the Tribunal. 21st May, 20 raj/AK Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether CWP No.14670 of 2025 -5- The above sequence of events that the petitioner-company has availed and its grievance has already been Further, the appeal is still pending. is still subjudice before the Tribunal, the asked for Mandamus is not required to be issued. Not just that, this Court has also examined the second prayer made in the instant petition. However, as payment of compensation on unt of disconnection of electricity connection is question of fact, it can only be adjudicated upon, by the apt forum under the relevant provisions of law. Further, the issue: respondent-distribution licencee is within consideration before the Tribunal. Thus, the prayer in question is, indeed mature. In summa, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, before parting, it dismissal of the petition would have no pending before the Tribunal. , 2025 /AK Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: The above sequence of events and the interim orders clearly availed the efficacious statutory grievance has already been adjudicated upon by the Further, the appeal is still pending. Therefore, when the matter the asked for Mandamus is not his Court has also examined the second prayer made in the instant petition. However, as payment of compensation on unt of disconnection of electricity connection is a highly disputed can only be adjudicated upon, by the apt forum under the issue: whether, the act of the in its legal realm? is still pending consideration before the Tribunal. Thus, the prayer in question is, indeed, In summa, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. before parting, it would be expedient to observe no bearing on the appeal, that is ( KULDEEP TIWARI ) JUDGE Yes Yes/No clearly statutory by the when the matter the asked for Mandamus is not his Court has also examined the second prayer made in the instant petition. However, as payment of compensation on highly disputed can only be adjudicated upon, by the apt forum under whether, the act of the is still pending , In summa, this Court finds no merit in the present writ would be expedient to observe bearing on the appeal, that is AMIT KUMAR 2025.06.11 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document