Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. M. LAL, S. N. SAXENA
PILIBHIT ISPAT (PRIVATE) LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 649 Of 1996
Decided On : 01/19/1996
ELECTRICITY - MINIMUM CONSUMPTION GUARANTEED CHARGES - LIABILITY - AGREEMENT - DISCONNECTION OF SUPPLY - RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS - VALIDITY - INJUNCTION - ILLEGALITY - U. P. CIVIL LAWS (REFORMS AND AMENDMENTS) ACT, 1976, RULE 2(2) OF ORDER 39, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a consumer of electricity, entered into an agreement with the U. P. State Electricity Board (UPSEB) for two years. A raid by UPSEB detected theft of electricity by the petitioner, leading to disconnection of supply and a show cause notice for assessment. The petitioner filed a suit seeking an injunction against UPSEB from recovering the amount and reconnecting the supply. UPSEB filed an appeal, and a Division Bench stayed the operation of the injunction. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice, and UPSEB permitted restoration of supply upon payment of a reduced amount. UPSEB sent a bill for the minimum consumption guaranteed charges for the month of June, 1995, during which the supply was disconnected. The petitioner filed another suit seeking an injunction against UPSEB from realizing the charges. The Civil Judge granted an ex parte injunction restraining disconnection. UPSEB filed an objection against the injunction and issued a recovery certificate for the charges. The petitioner applied for permanent disconnection, and UPSEB moved an application to recall the injunction order. The Civil Judge partly allowed UPSEB's application but refused to recall the injunction order. UPSEB challenged the injunction orders and the recovery proceedings in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was liable to pay the minimum consumption guaranteed charges for the month of June, 1995, during which the electric supply had remained out due to the detection of theft of electricity by the petitioner. The court found that the agreement between the parties contained a clause entitling UPSEB to recover the charges for the period during which the supply was withheld during the subsistence of the agreement. The court also held that the recovery proceedings initiated by UPSEB were valid and legal, and the Collector and Tahsildar had the right to arrest the petitioner's director in an attempt to execute the recovery certificate. The court further held that the civil suits filed by the petitioner were not maintainable as they did not seek a declaration of non-liability for the bill and did not pay the necessary court fees. The court also found that the injunction orders passed by the Civil Judge were illegal and void as they violated the provisions of the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976, which required adequate security to be furnished for injunctions staying the recovery of dues recoverable as land revenue.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay the minimum consumption guaranteed charges for the month of June, 1995, during which the electric supply had remained out due to the detection of theft of electricity by the petitioner? 2. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by UPSEB were valid and legal? 3. Whether the civil suits filed by the petitioner were maintainable? 4. Whether the injunction orders passed by the Civil Judge were illegal and void?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the agreement between the parties, which contained a clause entitling UPSEB to recover the minimum consumption guaranteed charges for the period during which the supply was withheld during the subsistence of the agreement. The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in J. T. 1993 (3) S. C. 613 Orissa State Electricity Board v. Orissa Tiles Limited, which held that the consumer was liable to pay the minimum consumption guaranteed charges if the supply was disconnected during the subsistence of the agreement for non-payment of electricity charges. 2. The court held that the recovery proceedings initiated by UPSEB were valid and legal as the petitioner was liable to pay the minimum consumption guaranteed charges and the amount sought to be recovered was recoverable as land revenue. 3. The court held that the civil suits filed by the petitioner were not maintainable as they did not seek a declaration of non-liability for the bill and did not pay the necessary court fees. 4. The court held that the injunction orders passed by the Civil Judge were illegal and void as they violated the provisions of the U. P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976, which required adequate security to be furnished for injunctions staying the recovery of dues recoverable as land revenue.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.
( 1 ) ARGUMENTS advanced on behalf of both the parties were heard at the stage of admission.
( 2 ) PETITIONER M/s Pilibhit Ispat (Private) Limited is the consumer of electricity for which it had entered into an agreement with the U. P. State Electricity Board on 30-9-1994 for two years. The load was 3850 KVA for manufacture of Special/ Alloy Steel Casting with induction furnace.
( 3 ) THE petitioners in this petition have prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of Tehsildar/collector, Pilibhit, dated 23-12-1995 as contained in Annexure 1 to the petition including the recovery proceedings; (ii) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to initiate any recovery proceedings against the petitioners in respect of June 95 electricity bill till disposal of regular Suit No. 175 of 1995 or till further orders of Civil Judge, Pilibhit in the suit proceedings; (iii) issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 to release the petitioner No. 2, Shri A. S. Solanki, who is the Director of petitioner No. 1, immediately from the civil custody/ prison.
( 4 ) A raid was conducted by the Special Checking Squad of the U. P. State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as upseb Lucknow, which resulted in the detection of theft of electricity by petitioner No. 1 in respect of which an F. LR. was lodged with the Police and the electric supply was dis-connected. UPSEB served a show cause notice also on the petitioners for making assessment. The petitioners, however, took recourse to judicial proceedings in the Court of Civil Judge, Pilibhit by instituting Original Suit No. 113 of 1995 in which Shri Todar Mal, the then Civil Judge, Pilibhit, granted an ex-parte and interim injunction on 12-5-1995 restraining the UPSEB from recovering the amount in pursuance of the show cause notice and directing for reconnection of electric supply. The UPSEB against the said order filed F. A. F. O No. 469 of 1995 before this Court, a Division Bench of which stayed the operation of the order dated 12-5-1995. The petitioners submitted a reply to the show cause notice to the UPSEB. It is not necessary here to mention all the details, as the same were not of much significance so far as the present controversy was concerned. It may, however, be mentioned that UPSEB claimed Rs. 3,25,44,128. 00 from the petitioners in accordance with Regulation 23 (1) of 1984 against which the petitioners filed an appeal before the Board. In terms of an amicable settlement, however, UPSEB permitted restoration of the supply on payment of Rs. 62 lacs which was further reduced to Rs. 30 lacs plus first instalment of other monthly bills and upon fulfilling the conditions, the supply was restored on 4/07/1995.
( 5 ) THE UPSEB sent a bill in the month of July, 1995 to the petitioner for the month of June,1995 for the minimum consumption guaranteed charges, as the supply in the month of June, 1995, had remained dis-connected on account of detection of theft in the premises of petitioner No. l. The petitioners again instituted Orginal Suit No. 175 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Pilibhit, seeking mandatory injunction restraining the UPSEB from realising the amount of minimum consumption guaranteed charges for the month of June, 1995, and declared that it was not liable to pay the same for the period during which the supply had remained dis-connected. The above named Civil Judge, Pilibhit on 19-7-1995 granted ex parte injunction restraining dis-connection on account of non-payment of the aforesaid minimum consumption guaranteed charges amounting to Rs. 15. 46 lacs. The UPSEB filed objection against the interim injunction praying for its vacation. There was no order against the UPSEB restraining it from recovery of the minimum consumption guaranteed charges and,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
