JANG BAHADUR SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTOR HAMIRPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jang Bahadur Singh has filed the present writ petition impugning the recovery proceedings by which the sale proclamation for attachment of his property has been issued as he would not pay the electricity bills relating to charges for consumption of electrical energy to run his tube-well. The petitioner calls himself a marginal farmer. On an enquiry by the Court, it was indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner that this petitioner has 20 bighas of land so much so that he needs a tube-well for irrigation of agricultural lands. The Court has also indicated that the tube-well is being run by a 10 H.P. motor with a four inch discharge. All that has happened is that the petitioner was to pay the electricity charges for running the tube-well at the rate of Rs. 532 per month.

(2.) Learned counsel for the U. P. State Electricity Board opposes this writ petition by submitting that the petitioner pays a fixed concessional rate. Between April, 1996 to December, 1998, i.e. for 33 months, the petitioner did not pay the charges for consuming the electricity to run the tube-well. The petitioner himself mentions this fact in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. Thus, while the petitioner permitted his bills against electricity to remain pending, the dues, as of date, travelled to Rs. 17,556. As the petitioner would not clear his bills for more than two and half years, the U. P. State Electricity Board took recourse to recover the pending, aforesaid, dues as a public debt.

(3.) On behalf of the U. P. State Electricity Board, it is also contended that the charges, which the petitioner was required to pay for running the tube-well, are highly subsidised and if this were to be converted into normal tarrifs, the amount could possibly be four times.