- (1.) Heard Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner-M/s Sartaj Rice Mill through its Partner Maqsood Ali is consumer of electricity having connection No. 1400/5466. On the basis of meter inspection reports dated 06.06.1999, 31.07.1999, 1.08.1999, 29.09.1999, 3.10.1999, 3.11.1999, 14.12.1999, 20.1.2000, 21.04.2000, 22.05.2000, an assessment notice was issued on 22.9.2000 to him by the Executive Engineer Electricity Division-II, Rampur, directing the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 2,98,080/- within 7 days towards overload electricity consumption charges.
(2.) Further on the basis of meter inspection reports dated 12.06.2000, 27.07.2000, 03.08.2000, 29.10.2000, 10.11.2000 and 19.12.2000, an assessment notice for Rs.1,25,838/- was issued on 31.07.2001, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount. Again, on the basis of meter inspection reports dated 23.01.2002, 9.2.2002, 28.5.2002, 13.08.2002, 01.07.2002, 26.08.2002, 08.09.2002, 13.10.2002, 30.11.2002 and 03.02.2002, an assessment notice for Rs.1,62,044/- was issued by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner on 03.06.2003 for deposit the said amount.
(3.) The petitioner claims to have preferred a comprehensive objection dated 04.05.2005 and reminder dated 15.04.2015 before the Executive Engineer, Electricity Division-II, Rampur, but when these remained unactioned, he preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40178 of 2015, M/s Sartaj Rice Mill through its Partner Maqsood Ali vs Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Another. The only grievance of the petitioner pressed before the Court in the aforesaid writ was that his objection dated 04.05.2005 said to have been pending for last 10 years, may be directed to be decided by respondent No. 2 within some time bound frame. The Court vide order 22.07.2015 passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that the objection of the petitioner dated 4.5.2005 may be directed to be decided by respondent no.2 within a time bound frame. The standing counsel has no objection to this prayer. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of finally with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the objection of the petitioner dated 4.5.2005 by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. " Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Court, notice was issued by respondent No. 2 for hearing him on his objections on 22.08.2015. As a matter of fact, the matter could not be heard and 26.08.2015 was fixed in the case. On that date, the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground of illness of his counsel. The Authority however proceeded to hear the petitioner and passed impugned order dated 26.08.2015 directing him to deposit the entire amount of dues within 15 days. The order impugned reads:- 588027-1 Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition. The order is assailed by the petitioner on the grounds that the impugned assessment notices dated 22.09.2000, 31.07.2001 and 03.06.2003 are illegal arbitrary and against the provisions of law; as well as against the provisions of revenue Manual of U.P. Power Corporation, which were applicable at the relevant time and that neither date and time of Meter Inspection nor post of official(s), who had made the inspection was disclosed by the Executive Engineer E.U.D.D. IInd Division, Rampur. According to him, the recovery proceedings for alleged overload of electricity consumption being prior to 03.02.2002 the impugned notices of assessment were time barred on 03.02.2004 as provided under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is mandatory in nature having been issued beyond period of 2 years. This section is applicable to the case of the petitioner as it has come in force w.e.f. 25.05.2003; that the petitioner had appeared before respondent No.2 on 22.08.2015. He claims to have produced the original receipt of filing of copy of his objection dated 04.05.2005, in the office of respondent No. 2 along with reminder dated 15.04.2015 and the postal receipt before the Authority. In this regard, he also preferred an application for cancellation of the assessment notices dated 22.09.2000, 31.07.2001 and 03.06.2003 for treating them as time barred under section 56(2) Electricity Act, 2003 and an another application, seeking opportunity for cross-examination of the officials of electricity department, who had allegedly taken MIRs in question was moved and also filed a third application submitting the copy of commercial and Revenue Manual of U.P. Powers Corporation Ltd in support of his case.;