ASHA JHA Vs. J.S.E.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.3.2012 passed by the Certificate Officer (Electricity), Seraikella in Certificate Case No. 49 (Electricity) 2002-03, whereby distress warrant has been issued against the petitioner. It has been stated that certificate proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in 2003 for realization of a sum of Rs. 3,25,407/- as arrears of bill of consumption of electricity. Notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was issued and the petitioner had appeared and filed objection denying her liability. Since, thereafter there was no hearing on the objection of the petitioner. After lapse of about nine years, the respondents got a general notice published giving list of several persons, including the petitioner (at serial no. 18) and asking them to treat the advertisement as notice under Section 7 of the Act and file appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not a subscriber of the newspaper, namely, Hindustan (Hindi Edition) and she could not know about the said notice. Otherwise also it was an absurd notice so far as the petitioner is concerned. Notice to the petitioner u/s 7 of the Act was served long back in the year 2003 and she had filed objection denying liability. Thereafter, there was no hearing of objection and liability of the petitioner has not been determined u/s 10 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the said advertisement in the newspaper, the said Certificate Officer has issued distress warrant dated 24.3.2012 against the petitioner on the ground that in spite of publication of notice in the newspaper, she had not appeared. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 24.3.2012 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and perverse and the said order has been passed casually and without verifying the record by the Certificate Officer. He further submitted that there was no question of recovery of amount by issuing distress warrant as the amount payable by the petitioner has not been determined by the Certificate Officer after filing the petitioner's objection denying liability by the petitioner.