LAL CHAND MINDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was the sole proprietor of the Company (Sirsa Electric Supply Company), was granted a licence on April 24, 1935, for generating electricity and supply of the same to consumers. This Company was later taken over by the Punjab State Electricity Board in the years 1965. The petitioner sought to challenge this taking over and filed a civil suit. During the pendency of the suit, he was appointed as a Receiver of the Company by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated February 17, 1966. Ultimately the suit of the plaintiff which was tried on the original side in this Court, was dismissed on February 8, 1972 and in the concluding portion of the judgment it was observed by the learned Judge that the interim order appointing the petitioner as a Receiver, also comes to an end with the decision of the suit.

(2.) Subsequently on April 7, 1972, the Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana, passed the impugned order, Annexure 'B', holding that he was satisfied that M/s. Sirsa Electric Supply Company had attempted to evade the remittance of Electricity Duty amounting to Rs. 5667-50 by maintaining false record and submission of false returns collected during the years 1966-67 to 1971-72 (till October 24, 1971) and thus levied a penalty amounting to Rs. 22,670/- on that account. The petitioner in his capacity as Receiver of the Company deposited the above noted amount, that is, Rs. 5,667.50 on October 25, 1971. The impugned order dated April 10, 1972 (Annexure 'B') was communicated to the petitioner with the direction to deposit the amount of penalty within 30 days from the receipt of the same. It was also specified in that order that in case the petitioner failed to so deposit the amount, the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue from him under Section 9 of the Punjab Electricity (Duty) Act , 1958. In reply to this communication the petitioner disputed his liability to pay the amount of penalty on the plea that during the period specified in the order i.e. April, 1966 to October 24, 1971, he was only a Receiver of the Company and was thus accountable to the Court only and was not liable to pay the above noted amount of penalty in his personal capacity or as proprietor of the Company which had been taken over by the Electricity Board with effect from April 24, 1965. The Chief Electrical Inspector did not accede to this request of the petitioner and communicated to him vide order Annexure 'E' that attempts to evade payment of Electricity Duty, by maintaining false record and submission of false statements, were made by the petitioner while he was acting as a Receiver of the Company. It was this incumbent upon him to deposit the amount of penalty in the Haryana State treasury in accordance with the rules.

(3.) The petitioner now impugns these two orders, Annexures 'B' and 'E' primarily on the ground that for the period to which the amount of penalty relates he was not running the Company as a proprietor, but only as a Receiver in which capacity he was accountable to thus Court and not to anybody else.