Back
1986 Supreme(Raj) 7
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.C. Jain
Dalip Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Electricity Board - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 506 of 1976
Decided On : 01/07/1986
Appearance :
S.C. Mehta, for the Appellant
S. Gupta, for the Respondents
The Dues Recovery Act can only be used to recover dues that are legally recoverable and not barred by limitation.
Headnote:
ELECTRICITY - RECOVERY OF DUES - LIMITATION - DUES RECOVERY ACT, 1960 - APPLICABILITY - TIME-BARRED DUES - NOT RECOVERABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, claiming entitlement to free electricity and water supply under a Government of India letter, challenged the cancellation of these facilities and a notice demanding payment of outstanding electricity consumption charges. The petitioner argued that the Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1960 (Dues Recovery Act) could not be used to recover time-barred dues.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Dues Recovery Act could only be used to recover dues that were legally recoverable and not barred by limitation. The Court found that the petitioner's dues were time-barred and therefore could not be recovered under the Dues Recovery Act.
Issues: Whether the Dues Recovery Act could be used to recover time-barred dues.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in New Delhi Municipal Committee vs. Kaluram, which held that a special procedure for recovering arrears of rent did not create a foundation for a claim for payment or create new rights. The Court also referred to the Punjab High Court decision in Custodian General of Evacuee Property in New Delhi vs. Harnam Singh, which held that the summary remedy provided by Section 48 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act was restricted to sums legally recoverable.
Final Decision: The Court partly allowed the petition, restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity supply to certain meters and from taking any action to recover dues under the Dues Recovery Act for the other meters. The Court also quashed the notice demanding payment of outstanding charges.
P.C. Jain, J.-This petition is directed against Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its concerned officers wherein the petitioner has averred that he being the brother of late the Ruler of Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singhji was entitled to the facilities of free supply of electricity and water under the letter of the Government of India No. E-4/P/49 dated March 24, 1949. The aforesaid facility was cancelled by the Government of Rajasthan by its letter No. F. 22 (36) GAB 67 dt. Sept. 8, 1967 from April 1, 1967, According to the petitioner after the cancellation of aforesaid facilities from April 1, 1967, the petitioner began paying electric charges regularly. The petitioner further averred that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted in the year 1957 and all the previous dues of Electricity Department of the State Government vested in the Board vide Section 60(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948) the respondent No. 4 (Assistant Engineer C. D. III Jodhpur has served a notice No. AEN Ced. Ill/REV. 76/D, 2144 dt. March 4, 1976, on the petitioner on March 5, 1976 (Anx.2) whereby the petitioner was called upon to deposit the alleged outstanding dues of electricity consumption up to 1962 amounting to Rs. 38,443.38p. and thereafter up to January 1976 Rs. 685’7.23p. within fifteen days failing which the electricity supply would be disconnected without any further notice and the notice was sent under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 (Central Act No. IX of 1910). It was also stated in the notice that action will be taken to recover the outstanding dues under the Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act 1960 (No. XXXIV of 1960) as arrears of land revenue. The said notice and the proposed action was challenged by the petitioner on number of grounds and it was prayed that the respondents be restrained from disconnecting the electric supply and from recovering the alleged dues mentioned in Anx. 2 as arrears of land revenue under the Rajasthan Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act 1960 (No. XXXIV of 1960) (in short the Dues Recovery Act 1960) and it was also prayed that notice under Section 24(1) of the Electricity Act dt. March 4, 1976 be quashed A prayer was also made seeking declaration that the said Dues Recovery Act 1960 is ultra vires of the Constitution and be declared void.
2. Reply to the writ petition has been filed and rejoinder too has been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner’s claim has been resisted by the Board. A preliminary objection has also been raised that the petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Article 363 of the Constitution. In order to avoid duplicity I am not referring to the details of the pleadings of he parties as the pleas and the contentions advanced before me would be dealt with.
3. I may mention here that after presentation of the writ petition stay order was passed by this Court in relation to certain meters. On March 26, 1976 this Court ordered that meters Nos. 15755, 15758, 18605, 18606, 18607, 18608, 18609, 18824, 186211, 18612, 15757, 15761, and 15756 shall not be disconnected. It was ordered on the basis that it is apparent from the list appended to the notice that there were no dues outstanding in respect of these meters. This order was confirmed after hearing both the parties on Aug. 30, 1976. On that day it was ordered that there is no stay order with regard to other meters so it is obviously open to the Board to
disconnect the others for which no stay order is there.
4. I haveheard Shri Sayarchand Mehta. learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents.
5. Mr. S. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondents at the outset raised the preliminary objection that this Court has got no jurisdiction and the present writ petition is not maintainable as the writ petition raised a dispute of the nature which arises out of t
