- (1.) THE petitioner is ag grieved by the recovery proceeding initial ly started against the petitioner on some wrong advice as the petitioner never ob tained any power connection and still a bill was forwarded showing the arrears of electricity charges. Sri Dhirendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that if the initial demand was without any basis, no question of paying any recovery charges arises.
(2.) SRI Sudhir Agarwal has been heard for the Electricity Board and its officials, while SRI S. C. Rai, Additional Chief Stand ing Counsel has appeared for the State of U. P. and the Tehsildar Chail (Sadar) Al lahabad. Normally a counter-affidavit might have been called, but the photo state copy of the letter of the Executive Engineer Sri A. P. Mishra indicates that the petitioner has not to pay any due towards the electricity charges. Some official of the Board wrongly issued a certificate in the name of the petitioner against whom departmental proceedings have been directed to be initiated. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed al the admission stage and it is directed that no recovery proceeding against the petitioner shall be initiated or continued concerning the electricity charges or its recovery charges. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the par ties on payment of usual charges within a week from today. Petition allowed. .;