# South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd v. Prescribed Authority & Ors. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1379 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-24 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 19391 of 2023 - **Bench:** Ajit Kumar, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/south-east-u-p-power-transmission-comp-ltd-v-prescribed-authority-ors-issue-for-54749 - **Pages:** 27 ## Text _Characters 0–39,870 of 84,527. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39870 for what follows._ 4 All. South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd.Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors. 1379 17. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to Respondent No.2, for necessary compliance. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1379 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. Writ C No. 19391 of 2023 South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Prescribed Authority & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION (i) Whether IBC overrides the electricity laws and regulations, thereby barring the respondent authorities from raising demands for the pre-resolution period after the resolution plan is duly approved and implemented. (ii) Whether the respondent authorities are entitled to receive separate notice of the CIRP and whether they had information to provide them opportunity to file their claims. (iii) Whether the respondent authorities could raise demand for their statutory dues after implementation of resolution plan, while they have neither filed their claim during CIRP nor objected to the resolution plan before NCLT HEADNOTE Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - ss. 3(6), 15, 31, 238 - Electricity Act, 2003 - ss. 173, 174 - Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Electricity dues pertaining to pre-CIRP period - Demand notices issued after approval and implementation of resolution plans - Distribution licensees sought recovery of electricity dues pertaining to the period prior to approval of the resolution plans - Contention that electricity dues being statutory in nature could not stand extinguished and that Electricity Act would prevail - Validity: Held: Section 238 of the IBC, being a subsequent legislation, contains a clear and unambiguous non obstante clause giving it primacy over all other laws in case of inconsistency. Though the Electricity Act occupies a special field and contains its own overriding provisions, the legislative intent underlying Section 238 of the IBC ensures that, in matters of insolvency, the provisions of the IBC shall prevail notwithstanding any inconsistency with the Electricity Act, including Sections 173 and 174 thereof. Court reiterated that the objective of the IBC is to ensure that the successful resolution applicant takes over the corporate debtor on a clean slate, free from past liabilities except those specifically incorporated in the resolution plan. Consequently, all claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished and cannot thereafter be revived or enforced. Court held that while the respondents are not precluded from exercising their statutory powers in respect of post-resolution discoveries or continuing liabilities, they cannot be permitted to enforce claims which stand 1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES extinguished by operation of law under the IBC. The contention that the Electricity Laws would prevail over the IBC was held to be unacceptable. The argument that electricity dues are statutory in nature and, therefore, cannot stand extinguished was also held to be unsustainable in view of the clear mandate of Sections 31 and 238 of the IBC. Court further held that where no claim had been filed by the respondents during CIRP and no objection had been raised before the NCLT against the resolution plan, no fault could be attributed to the Resolution Professional. Publication made after following the procedure prescribed under the IBC constitutes sufficient notice to all stakeholders, and the respondent authorities are no exception so as to claim a separate notice. In the instant case, the respondent authorities neither filed any claim in respect of the alleged electricity dues during the CIRP nor did such dues form part of the resolution plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned demands, which sought to resurrect claims extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan, could not be permitted to be enforced under the guise of statutory recovery proceedings. Demand notices quashed. However, the respondent authorities were granted liberty to issue fresh demand notices in respect of any dues arising for the post-resolution period, in accordance with law. (E-5) (Paras 101 to 116) CASE LAW CITED Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531; Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657; RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar, (2023) 10 SCC 718; Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 10 SCC 60; Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2022) 6 SCC 343; Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank, (2018) 1 SCC 407; Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 325; Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Srigdhaa Beverages, (2020) 6 SCC 404; State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited (2023) 9 SCC 545 List of Acts Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Electricity Act, 2003; Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958. List of Keywords Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process; CIRP; Resolution Plan; Clean Slate Principle; Extinguishment of Claims; Electricity Dues; Statutory Dues; Operational Creditor; Public Announcement; Notice to Creditors; Section 31 IBC; Section 238 IBC; Overriding Effect; Binding Nature of Resolution Plan; Electricity Act; PreCIRP Liability; Post-Resolution Liability; Recovery Proceedings; Corporate Debtor; Insolvency Resolution. CASE ARISING FROM Demand notices issued to the petitioners for recovery of electricity dues pertaining to the period prior to commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of the concerned companies. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Shubham Agarwal, Varad Nath; Pratik J. Nagar. 4 All. South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd.Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors. 1381 Advs. for the Respondents: Krishna Agarwal, Narendra Kumar Tiwari; Ravi Anand Agarwal, Baleshwar Chaturvedi, C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.) For the convenience of exposition, this common order is divided into the following parts:- INDEX I.Factual Matrix....................................................................................... 3 II. Submissions on behalf of Petitioners.........................................9 III.Submissions on behalf of Respondents....................................15 IV. Points for Determination.....................................................21 V. Discussion and Analysis........................................................21 (i) Overriding Effect of the IBC over Electricity Laws.. ..........22 (a) Arrival of IBC......................................................22 (b) Interplay in between IBC and Electricity Laws......................................................................24 (c) Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court....................29 (ii) Notice of CIRP and non-submission of claims.................35 (a) Nature of Electricity dues under the IBC........................35 (b) Whether Public Announcement is sufficient Notice under IBC.......................................................................36 (c) Effect of non-filing of claim under CIRP...............................38 (iii) Maintainability of demand notices raised for pre- CIRP period....................................................................39 VI. Conclusion....................................................................43 VII. Order.........................................................................48 1382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1. Both writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arise out of a similar grievance, wherein the respective petitioners challenge the demand notices issued to them towards electricity dues pertaining to the period prior to the commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as CIRP) of the concerned companies, which are resolved long ago after following due procedure prescribed under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as IBC). In Writ C No.19391 of 2023, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned demand notices, whereas in Writ C No.17846 of 2025, the petitioner, prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned demand to the extent it pertains to the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan, and a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action pursuant to the said notices and subsequent actions. 2. Since the reliefs sought in both the petitions are substantially similar, and the matters arise out of a similar set of facts involving identical questions of law, both the petitions were taken up together for hearing and are being decided by this common order. However, the necessary facts pleaded in each writ petition, as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties therein, are being noticed separately wherever required. I Factual Matrix 3. The factual matrix in Writ C No. 19391 of 2023 is that the Isolux Corsan Concesiones S.A. (hereinafter referred to as Isolux) has received a letter of intent dated 05.07.2011 by the Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as UPPTCL) to establish a 765 kV transmission system on a Build-Own-Operate-Maintain & Transfer (BOOT) basis at Mainpuri-Bara line. 4. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner company was incorporated as a special purpose vehicle in September 2011 to implement and operate the said transmission system, and its 100% shareholding was subsequently acquired by Isolux on 16.12.2011. In furtherance to this, on 20.01.2012, the petitioner entered into Transmission Service Agreements with the distribution licensees (hereinafter referred to as DISCOMs) in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 5. Thereafter, on 25.09.2013, the petitioner applied to Respondent No.1 seeking a 630 KVA, 33 kV auxiliary power supply at the 400/220 kV Rewa Road GIS Sub-station. On 04.01.2014, the petitioner informed UPPCL of its requirement for two 33 kV auxiliary sources for safe operations, specifically indicating that one such source was being drawn through the tertiary winding of Inter-Connecting Transformer-II (hereinafter referred to as ICT-II). Subsequently, an Electrical Energy Supply Agreement dated 18.04.2015 came to be executed between the petitioner and Respondent No.1. 6. In continuation thereof, the ICT-II was charged on 02.10.2015 and allegedly utilised as a source of auxiliary power. The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) declared commercial commissioning of the transmission lines and substations with effect from 27.10.2017, which was communicated by UPPTCL to the petitioner on 19.07.2018. 4 All. South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd.Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors. 1383 7. Subsequently, the company has gone into the insolvency as the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the NCLT), Allahabad Bench, vide its order dated 06.07.2020 initiated the CIRP against the company under the provisions of the IBC. 8. During the CIRP, Resurgent Power Ventures Pvt. Limited submitted a resolution plan on 19.07.2021, which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter referred to as CoC) with a 100% vote on 08.03.2022. The NCLT formally approved this resolution plan vide its order dated 15.06.2022, and it was implemented on 15.09.2022. Following this, the UPERC approved the 100% change in shareholding to Resurgent Power on 29.07.2022. 9.The actual root of the dispute is the inspection dated 17.10.2022, when respondents conducted an inspection of the Rewa Road Sub-station, wherein it was observed and recorded in the minutes that no meter had been installed at the ICT-II tertiary, resulting in an absence of energy accounting since its charging from 02.10.2015. Consequently, Respondent No.1 installed a meter at the tertiary winding of ICT-II in 21.10.2022 to assess actual consumption. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued demand notices on 09.01.2023, 21.01.2023, and a notice on 04.02.2023, claiming an amount of Rs. 2,17,49,692.58/- for the auxiliary consumption of power from ICT-II spanning the period from 02.10.2015 to 01.12.2022. 10. The Petitioner opposed demand notices for the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan, sending reply dated 16.02.2023, and 02.03.2023, while simultaneously clearing the dues generated for the period after approval of the resolution plan on 15.06.2022 by the order passed by Ld. NCLT. On 17.05.2023, Respondent No.1 issued another demand notice dated 17.05.2023, alleging unauthorized use of electricity and indicating the probability of recovery proceedings to be initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by these actions, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 11. The factual background in Writ C No. 17846 of 2025 is that the petitioner, Tata Steel Limited (hereinafter referred to as TSL), is the successor-in-interest of Tata Steel BSL Limited (hereinafter referred to as TSBSL), formerly known as Bhushan Steel Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSL). 12. On 08.08.2011, the erstwhile BSL entered into an Agreement for Supply of Electrical Energy with the Executive Engineer, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as PVVNL). The said agreement pertained to BSLs Pilkhuwa Stockyard, under which an industrial load connection (HV-2) category was sanctioned, and the supply of electricity commenced with effect from 01.10.2011. 13. On 03.07.2017, the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as SBI) initiated CIRP against the erstwhile BSL by filing a petition under Section 7, IBC before NCLT, New Delhi, Principal Bench. Ld. NCLT admitted the petition filed by the SBI on 26.07.2017 and appointed an Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as IRP) while imposing moratorium as per procedure prescribed under IBC. 1384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 14. The IRP made public announcement inviting claims from all creditors as per procedural requirement under IBC. Subsequently, on 03.02.2018, TSL submitted its resolution plan, which was approved by the CoC on 20.03.2018. The NCLT approved TSLs resolution plan vide its order dated 15.05.2018. Following this approval, TSL acquired the control and business of BSL on 18.05.2018, and BSL's name was changed to Tata Steel BSL Limited (TSBSL) on 27.11.2018. The NCLT's approval was upheld after appeals against resolution plan got dismissed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as NCLAT) on 10.08.2018 and the Supreme Court on 22.02.2021. Eventually, TSBSL was wholly amalgamated with TSL pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned NCLT, Mumbai Bench, with effect from 11.11.2021. 15. As appeared from records, on 11.03.2019, the erstwhile TSBSL officially intimated Respondent No. 2 about the completion of the CIRP and its takeover and thereafter deposited the requisite fee to change the consumer name from BSL to TSBSL in the electricity records. On 13.01.2023, officials of PVVNL conducted an inspection at the Pilkhuwa Stockyard, which gave rise to the present dispute. Based on the said inspection, Respondent No.2 issued the demand notice dated 09.03.2023 being Notice No. 8670, alleging that the petitioner was consuming electricity in excess of the sanctioned load and raising a demand of Rs. 1,15,33,801/-. In response, on 28.04.2023, the petitioner submitted its reply, bringing to the notice of the respondents the facts relating to CIRP and amalgamation, and also sought a two-week extension of time to furnish a detailed response. 16. On 29.04.2023, Respondent No.2 issued two more notices, being Notice Nos. 641 and 642. By notice no. 641, the petitioners response was rejected on the ground that TSL was not competent to reply to the notice issued in the name of BSL and by notice no. 642, alleged that during the inspection dated 13.01.2023, the connection was found to be operating under the commercial load category (HV-1) instead of the sanctioned industrial category (HV-2). The said notices further directed the petitioner to appear for a hearing on 17.05.2023. 17. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 16.05.2023, reiterating that the stockyard was merely an extension of its Sahibabad Industrial Plant, thereby justifying classification under the (HV-2) and also asserting its legal contention that any demand relating to the period prior to approval of the CIRP on 15.05.2018 stood extinguished. Thereafter, PVVNL issued another letter dated 05.10.2023 fixing the matter for hearing on 18.10.2023, with the mention that ex-parte proceedings may be taken in the event of non-appearance. The petitioner again reiterated its stand in the letter dated 28.11.2023. 18. Following an order passed by PVVNL on 16.09.2024, determining the demand as final revenue, on 26.10.2024, Respondent No.2 issued the demand notice no. 6428, directing the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,15,33,801/- by 26.11.2024, failing which the recovery would be proceeded as an arrear of land revenue. Further, on 18.01.2025, notice no. 8148 was issued to the District Magistrate to initiate recovery proceedings. Consequently, on 05.02.2025, the Tehsildar, Hapur, Respondent No.3 issued the impugned recovery notice (RC No. 36) demanding the amount under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as Revenue Code). 4 All. South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd.Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors. 1385 19. Upon receipt of the recovery citation, the petitioner sent a letter dated 20.02.2025, seeking a month-wise and year-wise calculation of the differential amount, disclosure of the precise basis for reclassification to (HV-1) category, and reiterating the applicability of the clean slate principle under the IBC, which makes the pre-CIRP unclaimed dues extinguished. Thereafter, on 21.03.2025, Respondent No.2 issued the demand notice, being Notice No. 10013, while stating that the department had not been formally informed of the CIRP and requiring the petitioner to undertake a formal change of name. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed letters dated 03.04.2025 to both PVVNL and the Tehsildar, placing on record the earlier intimations, including those made since 2019, and disputing the initiation of recovery proceedings. II Submissions on behalf of Petitioners 20. Having heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Varad Nath, as well as Ms. Sadhavi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No, 19391 of 2023 and Sri Devashish Bharukha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ C No.-17846 of 2025, we find basic submissions advanced in both petitions has been that the impugned demand and recovery actions in both writ petitions are ex facie illegal, being in direct contravention of the respective approved resolution plans and the statutory scheme under the IBC. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ C No. 19391 of 2023 submitted that during the CIRP, neither any claim was filed by the respondent authorities in respect of electricity dues, nor was any representation or objection made by them during the pendency of CIRP proceedings. It is submitted that the CoC approved the resolution plan on 08.03.2022, which was subsequently approved by the NCLT on 15.06.2022. Neither any objection was filed by respondents against the resolution plan nor they assailed approved resolution plan at any stage. 22. Learned counsel representing petitioner in Writ C No. 19391 of 2023 further submitted that the law is well settled that the resolution plan approved by the CoC is binding upon all stakeholders. He relied upon clause 8 of the approved resolution plan, which is as follows: "8. Waivers, Reliefs and Exemptions 8.1. The Resolution Applicant claimed various reliefs, waivers and concessions in the resolution plan. However, in our view, we cannot grant all such reliefs and concessions for the effective implementation of the Resolution Plan. As per the scheme of IBC read with the regulations made thereunder, and keeping the judicially settled position in view, we grant the reliefs, waiver and claims made by the Resolution Applicant in the following manner and only to this extent: - a. After the payment of the dues to the creditors, as per the resolution plan, all the liabilities of the said stakeholders shall stand permanently extinguished after the approval of the resolution plan. We further hold that other claims including Government/Statutory Authority, whether lodged during CIRP or not, shall stand extinguished after the approval of the resolution plan. We further hold that contingent/unconfirmed dues shall also stand extinguished. 1386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES b. In view of the judgment of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt Ltd v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 95(i) that once a Resolution Plan is approved, a creditor cannot initiate proceedings for recovery of claims which are not part of the Resolution Plan. Therefore, all claims except provided in the plan shall stand permanently extinguished." (emphasis supplied) 23. It was further submitted that after the approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, respondent authorities conducted the inspection on 17.10.2022 at the premises of the petitioner. Later, respondents issued a demand notice dated 09.01.2023 demanding payment from 02.10.2015, which cannot be permissible in law as demand is raised for the pre-CIRP period. 24. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has already discharged liabilities which pertain to the period after approval of the resolution plan, and the dispute in the present petition is confined to the demand raised for the pre-resolution period. Learned counsel relied upon Section 31 of the IBC, 2016 to buttress his submissions that the petitioner is not liable for the demand related to the pre-CIRP duration. 25. Sri Devashish Bharuka, learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ C No. 17846 of 2025, submitted that while entertaining the writ petition on 29.05.2025, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioner and stayed recovery of demand relating to the period prior to 15.05.2018, and directed issuance of a revised demand confined to the period thereafter. In compliance thereof, a revised demand was issued by respondent authorities. 26. He further submitted that this Court, in its order dated 29.05.2025, also noted that the core issue for determination is whether the respondents were justified in raising demands for the pre- CIRP period despite its own fault of non-filing of claims during the CIRP and further not raising any objection till the approval of the resolution plan on 15.05.2018 by NCLT. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on judgements of the Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531 and Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Writ C No. 19391 of 2023 further submitted that pursuant to initiation of CIRP by NCLT, Allahabad Bench vide its order dated 06.07.2020, after following due procedure of CIRP, the resolution plan submitted by Resurgent Power Ventures Limited was approved on 15.06.2022 by NCLT and had since been implemented. Similarly, in Writ C No. 17846 of 2025, the approved resolution plan dated 15.05.2018 in respect of the erstwhile corporate debtor has attained finality and has been duly acted upon. In both cases, the approved resolution frameworks have not been challenged by the respondents when it could have been, and now the resolution is concluded. 4 All. South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd.Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors. 1387 29. It was submitted that in both petitions, substantial portion of the impugned demands pertains to the pre-CIRP period. In Writ C No. 19391 of 2023, the demand relates to the period prior to 15.06.2022, whereas in Writ C No. 17846 of 2025, the demand pertains to the period from 08.08.2011 to 15.05.2018. Relying on the clean slate doctrine read with Sections 31(1) and 238 of the IBC, 2016, it was contended that all such pre-CIRP debts and statutory dues stand extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan and cannot be revived or demanded thereafter. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 31 of the IBC makes the approved resolution plan binding on all stakeholders, including governmental and statutory authorities, and all claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished upon its approval. It is further emphasized that CIRP proceedings are in rem in nature and bind all stakeholders without requiring individual intimation. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar (2023) 10 SCC 718. 31. It was further submitted that the respondents had acted arbitrarily in both matters. In Writ C No. 19391 of 2023, the petitioners electricity connection was reclassified from industrial to commercial without any cogent basis or supporting material, and despite repeated requests dated 16.02.2022 and 02.03.2023, no meaningful breakup of the demand was supplied to the petitioner. In Writ C No. 17846 of 2025, similar arbitrariness is alleged in the assessment of demand without proper disclosure or transparency, rendering the impugned actions violative of principles of natural justice. 32. Further, it was submitted that CIRP being in rem proceedings, all stakeholders are deemed to have knowledge of its commencement and also the public announcement was duly made in compliance with Section 15 of the IBC read with Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as IBBI Regulation), including publication in widely circulated newspapers. In this circumstance, respondent authorities, cannot plead ignorance of the CIRP proceedings and even if they do so, that cannot make any difference as per settled law on this issue. 33. It was further submitted that in both matters, the respondents are attempting to enforce pre-CIRP liabilities contrary to the approved resolution framework and established legal principles in this regard. Reliance is placed on Section 238 of the IBC, which gives overriding effect over the Electricity Act, 2003. It was also argued that Section 238 of the IBC contains a clear non-obstante clause giving overriding effect to the provisions of the Code over any other law for the time being in force. 34. The petitioners relied upon judgement in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 60, where the Supreme Court has held that the waterfall mechanism provided under Section 53, makes it clear that the governmental dues rank subservient to those of secured, unsecured, and operational creditors. 35. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents are operational creditors within the meaning of Sections 5(20) of the IBC, as the impugned demands constitute claim being operational debts, and are therefore bound by the approved resolution plans. Since they 1388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES could not file claim within time, they cannot demand it after approval as well as implementation of the resolution plan. Petitioners finally reiterated that in both writ petitions, the respondents are seeking to enforce extinguished claims contrary to the statutory provisions of the IBC as well as established legal principles, and therefore impugned demand notices deserve to be quashed. 36. It was also submitted that the respondent authorities failed to file their claims during the time provided for the same by Resolution Professional during CIRP in both matters and, consequently, claims stand extinguished and cannot be revived after approval of the resolution plans. III Submissions on behalf of Respondents 37. Having heard Sri Sambhu Chopra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents in Writ C No.-19391 of 2023 and Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Anand Agarwal, learned panel counsel for respondents in Writ C No.-17846 of 2025. Learned counsel for the respondents in both petitions submitted that the writ petitions are misconceived and the impugned demands are fully justified in law as well as on facts. It was contended that the reliance placed by the petitioners on the doctrine of clean slate under the IBC is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as statutory dues and electricity charges owed to public authorities cannot be extinguished in the manner suggested. In support of this submission, counsel appearing for respective respondents, relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. Srigdhaa Beverages, (2020) 6 SCC 404 and State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited (2023) 9 SCC 545. 38. Learned counsel further submitted that a conjoint reading of the principles in abovementioned judgments along with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the applicable state electricity regulations makes it clear that statutory dues created by operation of law constitute secured debts and cannot be extinguished by referring to the IBC framework. It was further submitted that any resolution plan which ignores such statutory dues payable to governmental authorities is contrary to law and cannot bind respondent authorities. 39. Learned counsel further submitted that under the statutory scheme of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Electricity Supply Code, 2005, electricity dues constitute statutory charges having enforceable legal character and cannot be defeated by general application of the provisions of IBC. 40. It was also submitted that the Resolution Professional was under a statutory obligation under Section 29 of the IBC to prepare an accurate Information Memorandum reflecting all liabilities, disputes, and operational dues, including electricity dues. In both matters, the petitioners were continuously availing electricity supply, and such consumption ought to have been duly reflected in the CIRP records. He further submitted that the failure of the Resolution Professional to properly disclose and maintain proper account of such liabilities cannot operate to extinguish lawful dues of statutory authorities, and the CIRP process cannot be used as a mechanism to defeat actual consumption based liabilities. 4 All. South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd.Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors. 1389 41. It was further contended that the reliance placed by the petitioners on Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. (supra) is misconceived and distinguishable, as the said judgment does not deal with statutory dues secured by operation of law, but pertains to claims in the context of resolution proceedings where creditors had participated or had the opportunity to submit claims. 42. It was further submitted that the principles laid down in Rainbow Papers (supra) clarifies that statutory dues cannot be ignored in the resolution process and authorities cannot be deprived of their lawful dues merely due to approval of a resolution plan. He further submitted that petitioners cannot take advantage of their own non-disclosure during CIRP to defeat lawful claims arising from actual consumption of electricity. 43. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner in Writ C No. 19391 of 2023 had unauthorisedly drawn electricity through ICT-II tertiary connection without proper authorisation and metering arrangement. The same was discovered during inspection conducted on 17.10.2022, wherein it was found that electricity was being consumed through an undisclosed arrangement and was accordingly assessed. 44. It was submitted by the counsel that such unauthorised consumption continued for a prolonged period and liability for electricity consumption commenced from 02.10.2015 as it was duly reflected in the impugned demand notices. The inspection took place after approval of the resolution plan on 15.06.2022, the petitioner cannot rely upon the resolution plan to avoid liability for actual consumption. 45. It was further submitted that the petitioner continued correspondence in its own name even after the alleged takeover and also made payments under its earlier identity, thereby demonstrating continuity of liability. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner was attempting to evade statutory liability under the guise of insolvency proceedings, which is impermissible in law. 46. Regarding Writ C No. 17846 of 2025 learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned demands were raised strictly in accordance with statutory provisions governing electricity supply and recovery of dues. It was urged by the counsel that Sections 173 and 174 of the Electricity Act, 2003 contain non-obstante clauses, and therefore the recovery proceedings are fully protected thereunder and the same is legally justified. 47. It was further submitted that as per Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, read with Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Rule, 1958 dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and the petitioner continues to be a consumer of the electricity connection originally issued to BSL. 48. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that Clause 5 of the supply agreement in between PVVNL and the petitioner in Writ C No. 19391 of 2023, creates a charge on the assets of the company. He further submitted that in terms of Section 100 of the 1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Transfer of Property Act, 1882, such charge is enforceable in law being a secured interest. Above mentioned Clause 5 is reproduced as under: "5. The outstanding dues will be a charge on the assets of the company. Before sale is made, the outstanding dues will be cleared and, in the alternative the deed to agreement / sale will specifically mention the outstanding dues and the method of its payment." (emphasis supplied) 49. It was further submitted that the statutory framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, read with the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, governs recovery, and the expression consumer includes any person supplied with electricity. The petitioner, being a continuing user of the same connection, was therefore liable for outstanding dues. 50. It was further submitted that inspection conducted on 13.01.2023 revealed that electricity was being consumed beyond the sanctioned load and that the industrial connection (HV2) was being used for commercial purposes (HV-1). It was also submitted that stockyard operations were continuing both prior to and after the takeover, and the petitioner was admittedly paying current electricity bills under commercial tariff. 51. It was therefore submitted that differential tariff and consequential demand had been correctly raised on the basis of actual usage and classification, and the petitioner cannot avoid liability for consumption under an incorrect tariff category. It was further submitted that no crystallised claim existed during CIRP so far as the respondents are concerned, and therefore there was no occasion to file any claim before the Resolution Professional. It was also submitted that no notice of CIRP was received by the respondent authorities. 52. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the erstwhile company continued in the same name even after approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT - and its subsequent affirmation by the Appellate Tribunal and dismissal of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court - the liability is deemed to have continued. Consequently, the petitioner, being the successor entity, cannot avoid such liability. 53. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent authorities, further submitted that since the electricity connection was originally granted in the industrial category (HV-1) to BSL, the petitioner was not justified in utilising it for commercial purposes. It was submitted that this misuse was discovered during an inspection conducted on 13.01.2023, and accordingly the demand was raised. It was further submitted that once unauthorised use of electricity is established, the charges become recoverable from the date of such unauthorised use commenced. 54. It was lastly submitted that the calculation of the impugned demand is based on due inspection and verification, supported by the checking report and calculation sheets on record after full compliance of provisions of law. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned demands in both writ 4 All. South East U.P. Power Transmission Comp. Ltd.Vs. Prescribed Authority & Ors. 1391 petitions are justified, being based on actual consumption as well as statutory authority; therefore, both writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. IV Points for Determination 55. Having considered the facts of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, following points arise for consideration in these writ petitions: (i) Whether IBC overrides the electricity laws and regulations, thereby barring the respondent authorities from raising demands for the pre-resolution period after the resolution plan is duly approved and implemented. (ii) Whether the respondent authorities are entitled to receive separate notice of the CIRP and whether they had information to provide them opportunity to file their claims. (iii) Whether the respondent authorities could raise demand for their statutory dues after implementation of resolution plan, while they have neither filed their claim during CIRP nor objected to the resolution plan before NCLT. V Discussion and Analysis 56. The Supreme Court has analysed the scope of judicial review in insolvency cases in Torrent Power Ltd. v. Ashish Arjunkumar Rathi and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 325, where it was held that: "14.7. Predictability and finality are thus essential to maintaining a robust insolvency regime. Judicial intervention beyond the narrow statutory confines undermines both predictability and finality. Recognising this, the IBC deliberately confines judicial review to strict statutory compliance under Sections 30(2) and 61(3). Respecting these limits will preserve the economic sense of the IBC and ensure that insolvency remains a predictable, time-bound, and market-driven process." 57. Having regard to the settled legal position that the scope of judicial review over an approved resolution plan under the IBC is limited, and that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is ordinarily not open to judicial scrutiny, we proceed to examine issues arising for determination in these petitions. (i) Overriding Effect of the IBC over Electricity Laws. (a) Arrival of IBC 58.