5 days ago
- Business
- United News of India
HC Pulls Up Spl Secy (Power) for flouting tariff incentive order
Shimla, Aug 4(UNI) Himachal Pradesh High Court has come down heavily on the Special Secretary (Power), Arindam Chaudhary, for willfully disobeying a previous court order in the matter of M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog vs. Arindam Chaudhary (COPC No. 600 of 2025).
Justice Sandeep Sharma, presiding over the contempt petition, observed that the respondent had attempted to 'overreach the judgment' and failed to comply with the court's specific direction to issue a notification granting industrial tariff incentives as per Clause 16(A) of the 2019 Industrial Policy.
In its earlier judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court had ordered the Department of MPP & Power to issue an enabling notification granting power tariff incentives to the petitioner, a metal-based industrial unit, from the date of its commercial production.
The department was given a four-week deadline. However, even after more than three months, no action had been taken.
The Court noted that the reply submitted by the Special Secretary claimed that retrospective revision of tariff falls under the domain of the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (HPERC) and not the Power Department.
Justice Sharma, however, found this argument untenable, stating that this line of reasoning had not been presented before the Division Bench earlier, where the government had instead admitted to issuing the notification.
The Court further cited the 2016 Supreme Court ruling in Manuelsons Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, which held that an enabling notification is a ministerial act, and where policy promises exist, the notification is deemed to have been issued.
Taking strong exception to the change in stance, Justice Sharma held that the respondent was prima facie in contempt of court. However, on the request of the Additional Advocate General, the Court granted a final one-week extension to comply with the directive.
The matter would now be listed on August 6, and the respondent has been directed to remain present in court to explain why he should not be punished for intentionally and willfully disobeying the Court's order.
This is another case in the state which highlights a broader issue of delay and bureaucratic reluctance in implementing industrial policy benefits already adjudicated by the judiciary. Earlier HC has been attached salary and vehicles of some of the state bureaucrats similarly breaching the court directions.
UNI ML RKM
