Arijit Pasayat, J.—
IAs Nos. 13-16 of 2002
1. Prayer in these IAs is for direction to the M.P State Electricity Board (in short “the M.P Board”) to refund security deposits made along with interest thereupon, in compliance with the judgment of this Court in CAs Nos. 1140-43 of 2000.
2. The prayer has been resisted by the M.P Board on the ground that pursuant to the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (in short “the Reorganisation Act”) the original Board has been succeeded by the two Boards i.e M.P Board and the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board (in short “the Chhattisgarh Board”). The liability, if any, should be discharged by the Chhattisgarh Board. It is pointed out that originally there were nine projects which were involved and seven related to the reorganised M.P State while two related to the newly constituted Chhattisgarh State. Two projects have not come into existence, is the stand of Chhattisgarh State. It was further submitted that in terms of Section 58 of the Reorganisation Act, the Central Government has to quantify the assets and liabilities and the follow-up action to be taken. Since that has not been done finally, it would be inappropriate to direct the M.P Board to liquidate the liabilities.
3. A somewhat similar stand was adopted by the State of M.P In response, learned counsel for Chhattisgarh State and the Chhattisgarh Board submitted that the amounts collected as security deposit were kept as fixed deposits in scheduled banks by the M.P Board and, therefore, it is the responsibility of the M.P Board to liquidate the liability. Reference was also made to an order passed by this Court in IAs Nos. 37-40 in CAs Nos. 1140-43 of 2000 where the M.P Board had undertaken to refund the security deposits.
4. What would be the rights available to the States of M.P and Chhattisgarh under the Reorganisation Act is really of no consequence so far as the present petitions are concerned. The undisputed position is that the applicants in the IAs are entitled to refund of the security deposits made. They cannot be made to suffer because the two States and the two Boards do not appear to have reached an agreement so far as sharing the assets and liabilities and other connected aspects are concerned. The original M.P Board took security deposits with clear undertaking to refund the same with interest. It is the said Board which has kept the security deposit amount in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank earning interest. This fact is not disputed. Admittedly, the original M.P Board continues to exist as of today. Hence, it is the original M.P Board, which is bound to refund the security deposits with interest as undertaken at the time of accepting the same and the said amount is to be paid without prejudice to the right of the Electricity Board concerned in getting adjustment or recovery from the State of Chhattisgarh or the Electricity Board of Chhattisgarh, as the case may be. Although it is noticed in the order dated 29-11-2001 made in IAs Nos. 37-40 that the learned counsel for the Board made a plea that it may not be made a precedent in regard to other claims but in order to be just, fair, consistent and having regard to what is stated above, we think it appropriate to pass a similar order. Hence, we direct the original M.P Electricity Board to pay a sum of Rs 55.32 crores to the appellants along with interest at the rates charged by the bank for fixed deposits in twelve equal monthly instalments commencing from 1-3-2003. The said payment would be made without prejudice to the right of the Electricity Board concerned in getting adjustment or recovery of the amount from the Chhattisgarh Electricity Board or the State of Chhattisgarh, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Reorganisation Act.
5. The learned counsel for the parties made some submissions in support of the respective contentions as to the rights and liabilities of the respective States or the Boards based on Section 58 of the Reorganisation Act. In our opinion, it is neither desirable nor necessary to express our opinion on the rival contentions for the limited purpose of dealing with the IAs for refund of the security amount deposited. All the contentions of the parties on larger questions as to the respective rights and liabilities between the two States and the respective State Electricity Boards are available to them to be urged in other proceedings, if need be. Our observations made in this order are confined only to the disposal of the present IAs.
Transfer Petition (C) No. 769 of 2002
6. Transfer of an appeal pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was sought for on the ground of pendency of IAs Nos. 13-16 before this Court. Since we have disposed of the IAs, the prayer for transfer is not accepted, as the appeal in question can be adjudicated by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
7. The transfer petition is disposed of accordingly.