CHANDRAWATI Vs. U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any action against the petitioners or their property in pursuance of certain recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the respondents. The relevant facts are that one Bishun Kumar Singh, the husband of petitioner No. 1 and the father of petitioner No. 2 applied for and was sanctioned by the respondents an electric connection of 35 H.P. at his tubewell for agricultural purposes in the year 1965. According to the petitioners, Bishun Kumar Singh was murdered in the year 1968 leaving the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. A bill dated 29 -6 -70 was thereafter received by the petitioners stating that a sum of Rs. 1,717.30 was due against Bishun Kumar Singh. This bill was addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh. For various financial difficulties confronting the petitioners in the wake of the death of Bishun Kumar Singh, the amount of the bill could not be deposited as a consequence of which the electric supply to the tube -well of the petitioners was disconnected sometime in December 1970. Nothing happened thereafter for nearly 6 years whereafter in August 1976 the petitioner received a bill addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh showing that a sum of Rs. 12,994 -92 and Rs. 155 -00 were due from Bishun Kumar Singh for the month of August 1976. The amount was claimed as consumption charges for the electricity alleged to have been consumed in connection with the tube -well. On receiving this bill the petitioners made representations setting out their difficulties and pointing out that Bishun Kumar Singh had died in 1968. There has not been any consumption of electricity after the electric supply was disconnected in 1970. The petitioners were hence not liable to pay the amount demanded through that bill. Subsequently the petitioners again received certain further demands which again were addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh who had already died. It is contended by the petitioners that in view of the fact that the electric supply was disconnected in 1970 they were not liable to pay the amounts which the respondents were seeking to recover from them in pursuance of notices of demand and recovery certificates addressed in the name of Bishun Kumar Singh.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit which has been filed it is asserted that the amounts which are being sought to be recovered from the petitioners are in pursuance of notice of demand dated 21 -6 -76 and December 1976 which were duly served on Bishun Kumar Singh and upon his failure to make the deposit within the time specified in those notices the respondents validly initiated recovery proceedings by sending recovery certificates to the Collector in pursuance of those notices of demand. It is not disputed in the counter affidavit that the notices of demand and the recovery certificates were all addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh and not to the petitioners.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel, we are of the opinion that this petition is entitled to succeed on a short ground In the view that we are inclined to take on this ground it is not necessary for us to enter into the other legal questions which both the learned counsels for the parties have raised at the Bar. The ground is that admittedly the impugned notices and recovery certificates, true copies whereof are annexures C1, C2, and C3 to the counter -affidavit, are addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh and not in the name of the petitioners. It is indisputable that before the respondents can proceed to recover any amount either as consumption charges or any other dues recoverable under the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, a notice of demand has to be issued under section 3 of the said Act. Section 3 provides: