Authorities must calculate and communicate outstanding dues, considering the claimed payment period, in accordance with law.

The petitioner, Gramin Vikas Samiti Khajurani, was operating a Fly Ash Bricks Unit in the RIPA premises of Gram Panchayat Khajurani pursuant to a resolution dated 8 March 2024.

The respondents required the petitioner to pay electricity dues and 5% of the profit earned from the unit.

The petitioner challenged the ex parte inquiry report dated 14 August 2026 and the order dated 3 September 2026, alleging that the demand was made without granting an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner stated that it had already deposited ₹20,000 towards the electricity bill and was willing to pay the outstanding amount, but required the respondents to furnish the relevant calculation and details.

It further contended that the liability should be calculated from 1 April 2024, when the unit allegedly commenced operations.

The State raised no objection to the petitioner’s request that the outstanding amount be calculated and communicated to it.

Whether the concerned authorities should calculate and communicate the electricity dues and 5% profit share payable by the petitioner, after considering its objection that liability commenced only from 1 April 2024?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to submit an application and deposit the amount claimed by it before the authorities passed a fresh order in accordance with law?

Whether the High Court should adjudicate the validity of the impugned inquiry report and order, or grant the substantive reliefs sought by the petitioner concerning possession and operation of the unit?

The Court applied the administrative-law principles of fair consideration and decision-making in accordance with law, requiring the concerned authorities to calculate the alleged dues, consider the petitioner’s objection regarding the commencement date of liability, and pass an appropriate order after considering the petitioner’s application.

The Court did not rely upon or decide any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent.

It expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s case.

The Court noted that the petitioner was willing to deposit the amount payable and that the principal surviving dispute concerned the period from which the electricity dues and 5% profit share were to be calculated.

Rather than determining the amount itself or adjudicating the validity of the impugned inquiry report and order, the Court directed the petitioner to submit an application along with the amount it considered payable.

The authorities were then required to calculate the outstanding amount, communicate it to the petitioner, consider its objection that liability commenced on 1 April 2024, and pass an order in accordance with law.

The Court therefore confined its intervention to ensuring a proper administrative determination and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

The petitioner was required to file an appropriate application, along with the requisite amount it sought to deposit, within seven days from receipt of the order.

The concerned authorities were directed to calculate and communicate the outstanding amount, consider the petitioner’s claim that the liability should be computed from 1 April 2024, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

No final ruling was given on the validity of the impugned order, the ex parte inquiry report, or the petitioner’s substantive claim to continue operating the Fly Ash Bricks Unit.