1 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT RESERVED On:12.02.2026 JUDGMENT DELIVERED On:25.02.2026 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1606 of 2023 M/s Annapurna Rolling Mills Limited through its Director --Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Sumit Bajaj, learned counsel for respondent no.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 09.06.2021 of Executive Engineer, UPCL (Annexure No.10). (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority (UPCL) to install a new meter having load capacity of 6000 KVA as applied by the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- company, M/s Annpurna Rolling Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), is a private company limited by shares and is an existing company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. The registered office of the Company is at 108-109, Rana Pratap Bhawan, 5, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002. The main objects for which the Company was 2 incorporated are, inter alia, to set up a steel furnace and continuous casting and rolling mill plant for producing steel ingots, billets, and all kinds and sizes of rerolled sections, i.e., flats, angles, rounds, squares, rail joints, channels, steel strips, plates, deformed bars, plain and cold twisted bars, shaftings, and steel structures, etc. 3. A petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, by the creditors for initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the corporate debtor, namely M/s Rana Global Limited, as the Corporate Debtor had availed various financial limits and had failed to meet its obligations under the repayment schedule. Rana Global Limited is a public company engaged in the manufacturing of M.S. ingots, billets, TMT bars, and squares, having one factory plant at Khasra Nos. 280, 281, 286, and 287 at Village Gangnoli, Laksar, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, for manufacturing M.S. ingots, M.S. structures, and TMT bars, and the said plant had been non-functional for the last five years. 4. The petition for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was filed by the Financial Creditor, Punjab National Bank, against the Corporate Debtor, M/s Rana Global Limited, for its inability to liquidate the decretal amount as assessed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow Bench. The Hon’ble NCLT initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, and Shri Rishi Prakash Vats was appointed as IRP (Interim Resolution Professional) by the Hon’ble NCLT vide order dated 23.03.2018 and was later confirmed as Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as "RP") 3 by the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as "CoC") in its first meeting. 5. Thereafter, the said IRP duly appointed by the Hon’ble NCLT issued a Public Announcement on 7th May 2018 in Form A under Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 to the creditors of Rana Global Limited to submit proof of their claims on or before 21st May 2018 at the address mentioned therein and, in this regard, made a public announcement by way of publication on 11th May 2018 in the Hindi and English editions of the newspaper Business Standard published in New Delhi. 6. The said RP issued an invitation for Expression of Interest (EOI) in Rana Global Limited. In response to the EOI, the respondent no.3, Shah Publications Pvt. Ltd. was sent an invitation by the RP for submission of a Resolution Plan and was provided with the Information Memorandum (IM) of Rana Global Limited. The Resolution Applicant, Shah Publications Pvt. Ltd., prepared its Resolution Plan and sought to submit the same for due consideration by the RP and the CoC and for submission to the Adjudicating Authority, i.e., the NCLT. 7. The above-said Resolution Plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant, Shah Publications Pvt. Ltd., was approved by the CoC (Committee of Creditors). The information regarding approval of the above-said Resolution Plan by the CoC in its meeting held on 28.12.2018 was communicated to the Resolution Applicant, Shah Publications Pvt. Ltd., by the RP vide letter dated 31.12.2018. The RP thereafter submitted the 4 above-said Resolution Plan of the Resolution Applicant, Shah Publications Pvt. Ltd., to the Adjudicating Authority who passed the order on 06.11.2019. 8. The immediate effect and operation of the order of the NCLT was that Rana Global Limited underwent a change in ownership and management in pursuance of the Resolution Plan, and the ownership and management vested in the Resolution Applicant, i.e., Shah Publications Private Limited. After adjustment of the claims of all the creditors, Shah Publications Private Limited became the new owner of the steel plant. 9. Thereafter, Shah Publications Private Limited entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU/Agreement) with M/s Annapurna Rolling Mills Limited, i.e., the petitioner, on 09.03.2021. As per the terms of the MoU/Agreement, it was specifically stated that Shah Publications Private Limited (First Party) is a company engaged in publishing, which involves financial, technical, artistic, legal, and marketing activities, among others. Annapurna Rolling Mills Limited (Second Party) is in the business of manufacturing basic iron and steel for almost a decade. The Second Party has a diverse business portfolio wherein it has helped others in establishing steel plants on a turnkey basis or otherwise. 10. In the MoU entered into between Shah Publications Private Limited and Annapurna Rolling Mills Limited, it was specifically agreed that the Second Party would assist the First Party in the revival of the plant purchased by the First Party. After signing of the MoU between both the parties as stated hereinabove, Annapurna Rolling Mills Limited applied to the UPCL for a new electricity connection of 6000 KVA for revival and 5 running of the plant, since the plant had been non- functional for almost five years, and for revival and proper functioning of the steel plant, sufficient electricity load is a prerequisite without which the steel plant cannot function or carry out production at its full capacity. 11. To the utter surprise of the petitioner company, the Executive Engineer informed and denied the new electricity connection to the petitioner company vide impugned letter dated 09.06.2021, stating therein that an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,69,83,184.00 was still due and, therefore, on the said premises, the electricity load could not be approved. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the previous electricity dues are related to Rana Global Limited, who were the previous owners of the steel plant, and that the petitioner company herein acquired the rights to run the steel plant in pursuance of the MoU/Agreement entered into between respondent no.3 Shah Publications Private Limited and petitioner/Annapurna Rolling Mills Limited owing to the inability and lack of experience of Shah Publications Private Limited to run and revive the steel plant. He further submitted that the previous dues of UPCL are the subject matter between Rana Global Limited and UPCL, and the present petitioner company has no concern whatsoever with the outstanding dues of UPCL after approval of the Resolution Plan by the Hon’ble NCLT. 13. He further submits that UPCL wrongfully denied the new electricity connection to the petitioner company based on the previous outstanding dues of Rana Global Limited, for which UPCL was entitled to 6 raise a dispute with Rana Global Limited before the appropriate forum and not with the present owner of the steel plant. The petitioner company (Annapurna Rolling Mills Limited) had rightfully acquired title in the said steel plant from Shah Publications Private Limited as per the terms of the MoU/Agreement dated 09.03.2021 agreed between them, and Shah Publications Private Limited had in turn acquired ownership of the steel plant by becoming the Resolution Applicant in the matter of "Punjab National Bank versus Rana Global Limited" on the strength of the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Bench, under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and after duly satisfying the claims of the creditors of Rana Global Limited as directed by the NCLT. 14. He states that as per the latest ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one of the principal objects of the I&B Code is to provide for revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a going concern. He emphasized that the I&B Code is a complete code in itself. Upon admission of a petition under Section 7, various important duties and functions are entrusted to the RP and the CoC. The RP is required to issue a publication inviting claims from all stakeholders. He is required to collect the said information and submit the necessary details in the Information Memorandum. The Resolution Applicants submit their plans on the basis of the details provided in the Information Memorandum. The Resolution Plans undergo deep scrutiny by the RP as well as the CoC. In the negotiations that may be held between the CoC and the Resolution Applicant, various modifications may be made so as to ensure that, while paying part of the dues of financial creditors, operational 7 creditors, and other stakeholders, the Corporate Debtor is revived and made a going concern. 15. After the CoC approves the plan, the Adjudicating Authority is required to arrive at a subjective satisfaction that the plan conforms to the requirements as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code. Only thereafter can the Adjudicating Authority grant its approval to the plan. It is at this stage that the plan becomes binding on the Corporate Debtor, its employees, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan. The legislative intent behind this is to freeze all claims so that the Resolution Applicant starts on a clean slate and is not burdened with any surprise claims. If that is not permitted, the very calculation on the basis of which the Resolution Applicant submits its plan would go haywire, and the plan would be unworkable. 16. The denial of the new electricity connection to the petitioner company would put a hindrance in its effective functioning and operation and would therefore be detrimental to the revival of the sick company, which is against the spirit of the legislation. 17. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, in which it has been stated that the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition, as he has no right over the factory plant situated at Khasra Nos. 280, 281, 286, and 287 at Village Gangoli, Laksar, District Haridwar, Uttarakhand, which is an existing unit for manufacturing M.S. ingots, M.S. structures, and TMT bars. It is further stated that, as per the Regulatory Commission Regulations, 2008, only the owner/occupier of the unit can apply for a power connection vide 8 Regulation 4(4) of the 2008 Regulations. 18. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Regulatory Commission of Uttarakhand has framed regulations for the issue of new connections as well as for reduction or enhancement of load. These regulations are called the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (Release of New HT and EHT Connections, Enhancement and Reduction of Loads) Regulations, 2008. As per Regulation 4, there is a provision for a new HT/EHT connection. As per sub-rule (4), the applicant has to annex proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises in the form of a sale deed, lease deed, or the Khasra or Khatoni. Further, the petitioner has concealed the fact that he is neither the owner nor a lessee of the factory premises and hence was not entitled to move any application for sanction of the load. These facts came to the knowledge of the power corporation from the documents annexed with the writ petition itself, and apart from the fact that there are electric dues upon the unit which the petitioner is liable to pay and on non- payment of which the load cannot be sanctioned, this would now be an additional ground for rejection of the application. 19. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that, as per Rule 7 of the Regulations, the power corporation has to ascertain whether any dues are outstanding on the premises, and the petitioner was required to deposit the said amount, and within one month from the date of deposit of the said amount, a decision has to be taken on the application. The petitioner is not entitled to sanction of load on account of the following facts: (i) He is neither the owner nor the lessee. 9 (ii) Concealment of material facts at the time of moving the application. Earlier too, M/s Annapurna Rolling Mills had applied for a power connection and had wrongly stated that there were no dues upon the premises. (iii) Violation of Regulation 7 of the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulations, 2008. 20. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner, in which it has been stated that the notifications relied upon by respondent nos. 1 and 2 with regard to the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission, Dehradun, have no application or relevance to the facts of the present case. 21. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record and going through the relevant provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a settled principle of law that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has an overriding effect upon the Electricity Act of 2003 and any rules framed therein. Moreover, due notice under Section 102 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was published by NCLT about the resolution proceedings in various vernacular newspapers by which the claims of debtors were called for, but UPCL despite the said notice failed to submit its claim, therefore, it cannot now put a hindrance to supply electricity on the grounds of non- clearance of debts. For ready reference, Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is quoted hereinbelow:- “ 238. The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith 10 contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.” 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments including Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and others; reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 842 has held that there is no liability for the new owner and the electricity department cannot compel a successful Resolution Applicant to pay arrears that were payable by the cooperate debtor before the insolvency process began. As the Electricity Board failed to file its claim with the resolution professional (RP) during the cooperate insolvency resolution process those dues stand extinguished upon the approval of resolution plan. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Supra) has held that the distribution companies cannot demand arrears from an auction purchaser and their claims must be settled in accordance with the liquidation process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 23. The second contention of the respondent nos.1 & 2 that the electricity connection was denied as the application could only be made by the owner or occupier of the premises and the petitioner, according to the respondent nos.1 & 2, is not an owner or a occupier also does not hold any water as the petitioner has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the owner of the said premises to set up a steel plant upon the premises and it can be validly said that the petitioner is the occupier of the said premises. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.06.2021, passed by 11 Executive Engineer, UPCL is hereby set-aside and the respondent nos.1 & 2 are hereby directed to install electricity connection as applied for by the petitioner forthwith and to supply electricity to the petitioner at the earliest not later than 30 days from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.02.2026 AK