MUKUL PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahboob Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.

(2.) It is contended that the recovery proceedings have been initiated without following the procedure prescribed under Clause 6.8 of the U.P. Electricity Supply Code. It is submitted that no notice or provisional assessment was ever issued to the petitioner nor any date, place and time was fixed for filing objection of personal hearing and straightaway a final assessment has been made and the recovery certificate has been issued.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of instructions has produced a copy of the inspection report, final assessment order and recovery certificate before us. On specific query being made, as to whether notice, if any, for provisional assessment was given to the petitioner fixing a date, time and place for filing objection on hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has not been able to satisfy us that the procedure as prescribed by clause 6.8 was followed.