Allahabad High Court

M/S THREADS INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusSRI PRAMOD KUMAR SAROJ EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Decided: 28 September 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

No contempt is made out as the original order does not expressly direct payment of interest; the applicants must seek a clarification/modification application.

Summary

The applicants filed a contempt application alleging that the Executive Engineer willfully defied the order dated 25‑11‑2025 in Writ‑C No.15542 of 2014, which directed adjustment of a statutory load‑factor rebate and payment of interest at 18% per annum. The court noted that the earlier order, following the precedent in M/s Jain Steels v. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (24‑02‑2011), required the respondent to either adjust the rebate against pending/future bills or pay the amount within eight weeks, but it contained no explicit direction to pay interest. The applicants claimed that interest had not been paid and sought contempt proceedings. The court held that, in the absence of a specific direction for interest, the applicants must file a separate application for clarification or modification of the original order. Consequently, the contempt application was dismissed and the matter was left open for a fresh application if needed.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to pay interest, absent a specific direction in the original order, amounts to contempt of court.
Whether the original order dated 25‑11‑2025 includes a mandatory direction to pay interest at 18% per annum.
Whether a separate application for clarification or modification is required to obtain interest.

Subjects

contempt
load factor rebate
interest
clarification application
electricity distribution
mandamus
court order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6848 of 2026

M/S Threads India Limited And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

Sri Pramod Kumar Saroj Executive Engineer
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mayank Kumar Agrawal, Saroj Giri
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

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
CAPL No. 6848 of 2026
2

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
3

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.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 29, 2026
N.S.Rathour

Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…