Allowed

The Lieutenant Governor and Others v. Hotel Seashell and Another

Calcutta HC17 Dec 2021MAT/3/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a Supreme Court order regarding limitation. The court disposition of security regarding tariff disputes while pending appeal established the rate structure and payment terms binding upon the parties.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; pending appeal fees/directives reserved; payment to be at industrial rate subject to appeal outcome.

The Lieutenant Governor and Others Vs Hotel Seashell… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

¶2

…

¶3

MAT/3/2021 In IA No.CAN/1/2021

¶4

The Lieutenant Governor and others

¶5

… Appellants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Hotel Seashell & another … Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.Chakraborty, Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocates … for the appellants Mrs.Anjili Nag, Advocate …for the respondents

¶9

December 17, 2021 [GNC] Item No.3

¶10

In MAT/3/2021 and CAN/1/2021, learned advocate for the respondents raises the issue of maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal is barred by the laws of limitation. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned order was passed on August 31, 2021 and that the appellants are protected by the order of the Supreme Court relating to limitation for the ongoing pandemic.

¶11

There is substance in the contention of the appellants. The impugned order is dated August 31, 2021.There subsisted protection on the point of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India. In any event, for the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in making and preferring the appeal from the order dated August 31, 2021. We propose to hear the appeal on merits.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length on the merits of the appeal.

¶13

The impugned order dated August 31, 2021 directs the writ petitioners to pay the appellants for the number of units

¶14

¶15

consumed after December 2, 2020 as per the bills raised i.e. the industrial rate described and not at the commercial rates. Upon payment of such amount within the period of one month from the date of the order, the appellants were directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of the petitioners. The impugned order also provides that the payment be made by the writ petitioners at the industrial rate. Any claims of the appellants against the writ petitioners shall abide by the result of any appeal that the appellants may prefer against the order dated December 2, 2020 and the order passed in review dated August 23, 2021 of the Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission.

¶16

Tariff was determined by the Joint Electricity Regulating Commission by the orders dated December 2, 2020 and the review order dated August 23, 2021. Appeals are pending in respect of such orders fixing the tariff. Such appeals are yet to be disposed of.

¶17

It is the contention of the appellants that on appeal, the rates will be revised and that the writ petitioners will not pay the revised rates in view of the impugned order.

¶18

Such apprehension expressed by the appellants are misplaced in view of the specific order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge provided that payment will be made as per the industrial rate and will abide by the result of the appeal that the appellants may prefer against the orders of the Joint Electricity Regulating Commission.

¶19

Since today, such appeals are pending, it would be appropriate to reiterate that the rates paid by the writ petitioners from December 2, 2020 at the industrial rate will be abide by the result of such appeals. In other words, in the event there is an

¶20

¶21

upward or downward revision of the rates in the appeal or the category is changed from industrial to commercial, the writ petitioners will pay at the rate so fixed in respect of the consumption for the period from December 2, 2020 onwards.

¶22

Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that there is every likelihood of the Appellate Authority considering and revising the tariff upwardly and making commercial rates applicable to the writ petitioners. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to security for differential amounts.

¶23

The appeals are yet to be disposed of. In the appeals if there is an upward revision or change from industrial to commercial rate, no doubt, the appellants will be entitled to demand the differential amount of security from the writ petitioners in accordance with law. In the event, the writ petitioners failing to pay the differential amount of the security, the appellants will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, MAT/3/2021 and CAN/1/2021 are disposed of.

¶25

(Debangsu Basak, J. )

¶26

(Jay Sengupta, J. )

The Lieutenant Governor and Others v. Hotel Seashell and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Lieutenant Governor and Others v. Hotel Seashell and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghunath Mondal Vs the State

The Lieutenant Governor and Ors. Vs D.C.Subramanyam and Ors.

The Executive Engineer Vs C.v.Thomas

Dr U N Choudhary Vs the Union of India and Others

The Lieutenant Governor and Ors. Vs Hotel Seashell

Kartick Saha Vs the State