KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge by which on the ground that the appellant has not exhausted the statutory remedy of revision available to him under section 62 of the Bihar Public Demands Recovery Act, his writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that a commercial connection was granted to M/s Satyam Roller Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the company ') on the basis of an agreement entered between the company and the Bihar State Electricity Board on 5.12.89. The company failed to pay the electric dues and, in the circumstances. Certificate case (Electric) No. 34/95 -96 was initiated by the Certificate Officer, Siwan, on the requisition of the Electricity Board. In the column of the Certificate - debtors the name of the appellant was also mentioned besides that of the company i.e. M/s Satyam Roller Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd. The appellant prayed for deletion of his name on the ground that the liability in question being corporate liability, his inclusion in the certificate proceeding was unwarranted and illegal. The plea found favour with the Certificate Officer who by his order dated 20.12.95 after hearing the Board ordered for deletion of the appellant 'sname from the proceedings. On 27.9.96 the Board filed a petition to mention the name of the appellant in the description of company i.e. M/s Satyam Roller Flour Mill. The prayer was turned down by the Certificate Officer on 11.11.90. The Board preferred appeal before the Collector of the District who took the view that as the agreement had been executed by the appellant his presence in the proceedng was essential and accordingly by order dated 9.10.2001 directed that the appellant 'sname be incorporated and thus set aside the order of the Certificate Officer. The appellant preferred writ petition, giving rise to this appeal, being CWJC No. 2003/2002 which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the appellant has not exhausted the statutory remedy of revision available to him under section 62 of the Act, as indicated above.

(3.) SHRI Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the Electricity Board submitted that the remedy of revision under section 62 of the Act being a complete and efficacious remedy the appellant should not be allowed to bypass the same, and so far as the argument regarding deposit of 40% amount is concerned, the point at issue stands settled by a Bench decision of this court in Sawar Mal Choudhary V/s. State Bank of India, 1986 PLJR 660.