Rnb Carbide & Ferro Alloys vs . Meghalaya Power Distribution on 27 January, 2025

Meghalaya High Court

Rnb Carbide & Ferro Alloys vs . Meghalaya Power Distribution on 27 January, 2025

Author: H.S.Thangkhiew

Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew

Serial No.08 Regular List &
Serial No.1 Supp.List


                      HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                          AT SHILLONG

WP(C). No. 4 of 2025 with
WP(C). No.9 of 2025
                                                   Date of Order : 27.01.2025

RNB Carbide & Ferro Alloys           Vs.     Meghalaya Power Distribution
Pvt. Ltd.                                    Corporation Limited & Ors.

M/s. Pioneer Carbide Pvt. Ltd.       Vs.     Meghalaya State Electricity
& Anr.                                       Regulatory Commission & Ors.


Coram:
             Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge

In WP(C). No. 4 of 2025
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) :          Mr. K.Paul, Sr. Adv. with
                                           Mr. S.Chanda, Adv.
                                           Ms. R.Dutta, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)            :         Mr. A.Kumar, Sr. Adv. with

Ms. R.Colney, Adv.

In WP(C). No. 9 of 2025
Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. P.K.Tiwari, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. R.J.Das, Adv.

Ms. A.Pradhan, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.Kumar, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. R.Colney, Adv.

1

1. Heard Mr. P.K.Tiwari, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. R.J.Das,

learned counsel in WP(C). No. 9 of 2025, and Mr. K.Paul, learned Sr.

counsel assisted by Mr. S.Chanda, learned counsel in WP(C). No. 4 of

2025, both appearing on behalf of writ petitioners.

2. As these matters are similar in nature, involving the same dispute,

this common order is being passed.

3. Mr. A.Kumar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. R.Colney, learned

counsel is present on behalf of all the respondents. Mr. A.Kumar, learned

Sr. counsel has however apprised the Court that a complete set of the

petition in WP(C). No. 9 of 2025 is yet to be received.

4. The grievance of the petitioners in these two writ petitions are with

the tariff difference amount which are being sought to be realized by the

respondents together with the bills that have been generated for the

relevant periods, in the case of WP(C). No. 4 of 2025, for the period from

05-12-2024 to 03-01-2025 wherein the tariff difference amount i.e. 1/9

instalments has also been factored in. Similarly is the case in WP(C). No. 9

of 2025.

5. It is submitted that the subject matter in question is intrinsically

connected to WP(C). No. 339 of 2024, wherein the issue of a fresh tariff

order is under challenge, on the question of jurisdiction. It is further

submitted that as WP(C). No. 339 of 2024 is still pending consideration,

2
the demand for payment of tariff difference amount at this stage is

unjustified and deserves to be interfered with by this Court. It is also added

by learned Sr. counsels that the writ petitioners have no issue with regard

to servicing the current bill amounts however, under protest.

6. Mr. A.Kumar, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents

submits that the main order dated 24-10-2024, where it has been mandated

by the Commission that the petitioners pay the tariff difference amount in

9 instalments is not under challenge and that only the tariff order has been

challenged. He further submits that as the matter involves public revenue

and public interest, no interference is called for at this stage in such

matters, inasmuch as, any interim order might cause substantial loss to the

public exchequer.

7. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned Sr. counsels for

the parties and has also examined the materials on record. As submitted, it

is correct that the substantial matter in issue is pending consideration in

WP(C). No. 339 of 2024 which is fixed for hearing on 19-02-2025. This

Court has also further considered the prayers made at this stage for stay on

the implementation of the tariff difference amount during pendency of

these applications as to whether the same would cause any irreparable

harm to the public exchequer.

3

8. Accordingly, taking into consideration the nature of the case and the

fact that the main matter is still pending consideration and that the bills are

due for payment today i.e. 27-01-2025 in WP(C). No. 4 of 2025, and 31-

01-2025 and 24-01-2025 in WP(C). No. 9 of 2025, it is directed that in the

interim, the tariff difference amount (1/9 instalments) shall be put on hold

till the next date, but however, the writ petitioners are directed to deposit

the amounts for the current bills, failing which this interim order shall not

be effective beyond the due date.

9. The respondents are directed to file an affidavit by 07-02-2025 and

thereafter, the petitioners are to file their rejoinders by 14-02-2025.

10. List this matter on 19-02-2025, together with WP(C). No. 339 of

2024.

Judge

Meghalaya
27.01.2025
“Samantha PS”

4