Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. Vs State of Odisha and Others (Orissa High Court)
Orissa High Court held that recovery towards arrear electricity duty demand set aside since there is procedural flaw in Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 [OPDR proceeding] and violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, writ petition stands allowed.
Facts- The writ petition has been preferred assailing the Order dated 09.02.2023, so also Order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Certificate Officer (Opposite Party No. 5) in Certificate Case No.01 of 2023, vide which the arrear electricity duty amounting to ₹40,49,15,126/- was held to be recoverable from the Certificate Debtor, i.e., the Petitioner-Company, for alleged non-payment of dues pertaining to electricity duty relating to its Power Plant at Bijayachandrapur, Paradeep. That apart, the Certificate of Public Demand dated 09.02.2023, Demand Notice dated 20.07.2023 and Demand Notice dated 04.11.2023, and other consequential Demand Notices issued thereafter are also under challenge. The Petitioner also seeks for a direction to the Opposite Parties to consider and decide its representation dated 10.07.2023, seeking waiver from further proceedings.
Conclusion- Held that admittedly, there is a procedural flaw in the OPDR proceeding. That apart, despite giving written communication for time, followed by communication dated 12.05.2023 by the Petitioner-Company denying liability, the same was not taken into consideration while passing one of the impugned orders dated 06.07.2023. Further, the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the OPDR Act was never followed before the determination of the Certificate, including not taking into consideration the documents filed by the CHr, and thereby giving opportunity to the Certificate Debtor to cross-examine the CHr witnesses, which amounts to violation of Principles of Natural Justice. Hence, this Court is of the view that, despite availability of alternative remedy, the writ petition is maintainable and impugned action deserves adjudication by the writ court, instead of relegating the Petitioner to the appellate forum under Section 60(c) of the OPDR Act. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Petitioner.
