G.P.MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionhas been filed for quashing the citation dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure -13 to the writ petition) and for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.
(2.) M /s. Nehru Steel Rolling Mills (hereinafter referred to as the Rolling Mills) was sanctioned a load of 700 K.V.A. and an agreement was executed between the aforesaid Rolling Mills and U. P. State Electricity Board (U.P.S.E.B.) (now U. P. Power Corporation Ltd.). On behalf of the Rolling Mills, the agreement was signed by the petitioner Anuj Bansal. On 11.5.1994, a check/raid of the Rolling Mills was done by the staff of U.P.S.E.B. and they found that theft of electricity was being committed. The electricity connection was disconnected on the same day and thereafter an assessment bill of Rs. 92,92, 215.40 was issued. Subsequently, a final bill was prepared on 13.12.1995 for Rs. 1,25,22,329 and recovery was sought to be made in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It appears that the Rolling Mills filed Suit No. 424 of 1994 challenging the recovery proceedings. On the objection of U.P.S.E.B., the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. This was challenged by the Rolling Mills by filing Civil Revision No. 141 of 1998 in the High Court, which was also dismissed on 15.4.1998. The Rolling Mills also preferred an appeal under Regulation 23 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Consumers Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations, 1984) against the assessment order but the same was dismissed by the Area Appellate Committee of U.P.S.E.B. on 3.9.1996. The Rolling Mills then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14060 of 1998 challenging the assessment order and also the appellate order. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an order on 13.5.1998 restraining the U.P.S.E.B. from realising the amount on the basis of the assessment order, provided the petitioners deposited half of the amount claimed within one month. Sri P. K. Jain, who is counsel in both the writ petitions has admitted that the Rolling Mills did not comply with the aforesaid condition imposed in the said order dated 13.5.1998 and did not deposit any amount. Thus, no stay order is operating in favour of the Rolling Mills.
(3.) SRI R. K. Jain, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri P. K. Jain, advocate has submitted that in view of the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and also the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Agarwal v. State of U. P., AIR 1984 SC 1213, the objection made by the petitioner ought to be decided first before he can be arrested in proceedings for recovery of the amount.;