POONAM PLASTICS Vs. M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, challenging the decision of the Settlement Committee dated 28.8.2000 (Annexure-P/3) as also the bill (Annexure-P/4) for the recovery of Rs. 87,917.00, on the ground that the Settlement Committee has not decided the case in his presence after providing him an opportunity of hearing. Even no notice was served before taking the aforesaid decision on 28.8.2000 and before sending the bill.

(2.) In reply of the rejoinder, LC for the respondents submitted a copy of notice dated 16.8.2000 (Annexure-R/2), by which an intimation was sent to the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 28.8.2000.

(3.) I have heard LC for the parties and perused the record. The only question before me for consideration is whether any notice or opportunity to defend himself before the Settlement Committee was provided to the petitioner or not LC for the respondent could not satisfy me that as to how the notice was served on the petitioner for the hearing dated 28.8.2000 nor they have filed any acknowledgement nor stated anything in the affidavit about the service of notice dated 16.8.2000 on the petitioner.