HARSHVARDHAN MITTAL Vs. U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Those who are under liability to pay lacs and lacs of rupees as dues, may be electricity dues or otherwise, try to find out some way to thwart the recovery proceedings. Provisions of law and agreement, therefore, have to be pointedly looked in to find out whether the objections are genuine or only as effort to by-pass the lawful dues.

(2.) Harshvardhan Mittal, Shiv Kumar Singh, Bramh Singh and Som Pal Singh are the four petitioners challenging the recovery certificates dated 4-3-99 and 1-4-99 for Rs. 14,12,778.00 and Rs. 32,04,144.00 respectively, (Annexures 7 and 8 to the writ petition). At the outset it may be stated that two recovery certificates have not named the petitioners Shiv Kumar Singh, Bramh Singh and Som Pal Singh but it indicates the recovery proceedings only as against the petitioner No. 1, Harshvardhan Mittal. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondents that the impleadment of petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 may be only a legal step to thwart some future proceedings may not be out of place. However, no final verdict on this issue is necessary for determining the point raised on behalf of Harshvardhan Mittal.

(3.) Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate for the petitioners assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar Jain has been heard in this matter at substantial length and the entire writ petition has been thoroughly scrutinised. Sri Jain placed reliance on certain provisions contained in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, U. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 and also on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. K. Bhargava v. Collector, Chandigarh reported in (1998) 5 SCC 170 : (AIR 1998 SC 2885).Sri Sudhir Agrawal has appeared on behalf of the U. P. State Electricity Board and Sri S. C. Rai, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., Tehsil and Collector, Muzaffarnagar who are the recovering revenue officials have been heard. It may be pointed out that the admitted position as emerging from the writ petition indicates that there was an agreement dated 23rd December 95, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioners as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The first page of the Annexure indicates that the parties to the agreement are classified into two parts. The first part describes the "Supplier" which has been noted therein as U. P. State Electricity Board and the other part describes the "Consumer". In this column of consumer the name of Sri Harshvardhan Mittal, son of Sri S. S. Mittal, permanent resident of E.45 and E.50 Jashodharpur has been mentioned followed by the name M/s. Vaibhav Steel Pvt. Ltd. Joshodharpur described as a Company registered under the Companies Act through its Director Harshvardhan, S/o Sri S. S. Mittal, permanent resident of E.45 and E.50 Jashodharpur (Kotdwar). The words partnership concern/proprietorship concern have not been cut out but since copy as filed indicates the name of the petitioner as Director, the other two descriptions shall be deemed to have been irrelevant for the purposes of this agreement which has been acted upon by the parties.