HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6848 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful defiance of the order dated 25.11.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 15542 of 2014, order whereof is quoted herein under:- "1. Heard Sri Saroj Giri, Advocate holding brief of learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the distribution corporation. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief : "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give actual credit/set off/adjust of the statutory load factor rebate admissible to the petitioner in past consumption bills as per the applicable tariff orders dated 28.04.2008 (Financial Year 2007-2008), Tariff Order dated 31.03.2010 (Financial Year 2009-2010), Tariff Order dated 19.10.2012 (Financial Year 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) and Tariff Order dated 31.05.2013 (Financial Year 2013-14) (marked as Annexure No. 3 to the instant writ petition) in future consumptions bills also; (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant admissible load factor rebate in future consumption bills as per Clause 5 of the HV-2 category of consumers, as per the tariff order dated 31.05.2013 (Financial Year 2013-14) and not to treat the demand of unpaid security or stay on security as Arrears/Dues; (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restitute the petitioner by paying interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of load factor rebate withheld illegally." 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the matter is covered by an earlier order of this Court in M/S Jain Steels Vs. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors., decided on 24.02.2011. 4. That order has been followed in subsequent decisions. Last, it has been followed in M/S Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. Vs. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Anr.; 2023:AHC:149744-DB. For ready Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Kumar Agrawal, Saroj Giri Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : M/S Threads India Limited And Another .....Applicant(s) Sri Pramod Kumar Saroj Executive Engineer .....Opposite Party(s) reference M/S Rama Shyama Papers Ltd. (supra) was disposed of with the following observation : "3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar controversy has earlier been raised in Writ Petition No.7390 of 2009 (M/s Jain Steels Vs. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others) in which the Court has accorded indulgence vide order dated 24.02.2011. Placing reliance in M/s Jail Steels (Supra) similar indulgence has also been accorded in Writ-C No.27514 of 2012 (M/s Ayesha Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Paschamanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another) vide order dated 30.05.2012. For ready reference, the order dated 30.5.2012 passed in M/s Ayesha Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Paschamanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.) is quoted hereunder:- "Heard Mr. Mayank Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. A Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order on 24.02.2011 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7390 of 2009 ( M/S Jain Steels Vs. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Others):- "The issue raised in this petition is similar to that was issue in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7764 of 2011. Considering this, this writ petition is also allowed with the direction that the respondents are directed to grant load factor rebate in respect of the petitioner and adjust the amount, which the petitioner is entitled, against pending and future bills, for which the petitioner is entitled within a period of four weeks from today and intimate the same to the petitioner. In case they choose not to adjust against pending or future bills, then to pay the amount claimed to the petitioner within eight weeks from today." Learned counsel appearing for the parties have jointly contended that this matter is covered by such order. Accordingly, such order will also be applicable in this case. With the above observation and order, the writ petition is disposed of, however, without imposing any cost" 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at Bar that the controversy in hand is no more res integra and the judgement and order dated 24.02.2011 passed in the case of M/s Jain Steels Vs. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others (Supra) has attained finality and present matter is covered by the said order and as such for all practical purposes said order will be applicable in this case also. 5. So far as factual and legal aspect is concerned, the same could not be disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of M/s Jain Steels Vs. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others (Supra)." 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of on the same terms." 2. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the subject writ petition came to be decided in terms of the order passed in M/s Jain Steel v. Pachimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others decided on 24.02.2011, according to which, in case the opposite parties choose not to adjust against pending of future bills, then they have to pay the amount CAPL No. 6848 of 2026 2 claimed to the applicant within 8 weeks from the date of the passing of the order. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the amount has been adjusted but the interest has not been paid. 3. On a specific query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicants as to whether there is any direction for paying interest, the answer is that in the relief, the interest @ 18% was claimed, though there is no specific direction. 4. In the opinion of the Court, once there is no direction for payment of interest and the applicant claims the same, then a specific application seeking modification/clarification is to be filed in that regard. No doubt, in Bindal Agro Ltd. v. State of UP, 2004 UPTC 564, the interest automatically gets attracted once the amount is illegally withheld without justification. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants thus submits that liberty be accorded to move an appropriate application seeking clarification/ modification of the order of the Writ Court claiming interest. 6. Accordingly at this stage, no contempt is made out and the same is consigned to record, leaving it open to the applicants to seek clarification/ modification and in case, the same is made and the same is acceded to, then it shall always be open to the applicants in case of non- compliance to again approach this Court. September 29, 2026 N.S.Rathour CAPL No. 6848 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad