- (1.) DISMISSAL of suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction is grievance of plaintiff in this appeal.
(2.) PLAINTIFF is a company incorporated under the Companies Act which carries on business of production of Sugar amongst others. For such production, it requires electricity. Part of electricity required is generated by plaintiff from its generating sets. For the said electricity generated, plaintiff is liable to pay duty as provided in the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Duty) Act, 1952. Vires of this Act was challenged by plaintiff and others in various writ applications in this Court and thereafter, the litigation was carried to Supreme Court. After decision of Supreme Court on 19-8-1983 upholding validity of the Act, Defendant No. 2 called upon plaintiff in letter dated "22-2-1984 to pay Rs. 14,13,786. 84 as duty under the Act. After one month, Defendant No. 2 addressed a letter to Collector on 24-3- 1984 to collect Rs. 12,91,411. 07 from plaintiff, copy of which was sent to plaintiff to pay 'the same failing which the same would be recovered. Prior to this letter plaintiff was making representations about its liability which were rejected. . Treating letter to Collector as certificate for recovery of the amount mentioned therein under. the coercive process, plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction prohibiting State of Uttar Pradesh (Defendant No. 1) and Assistant Electrical Inspector (Defendant No. 2) from recovering the amount as stated in letter, dated 24-3-1989 under coercive process or as arrear of land revenue towards Electricity duty for the period between November 1970. and September 1983 before examining the duty actually due and taking into account Rs. 7,59,614. 22 paid. Trial Court dismissed the suit finding that before filing the suit plaintiff is required to deposit the amount protest. Judgment of trial court is vulnerable on the short ground that it proceeded on the finding that a certificate has been issued. However, the same cannot be interferred with in case it is found that the suit is liable to be dismissed on other grounds.
(3.) FOR deciding the appeal it is to be remembered that plaintiff based its suit asserting that a certificate for recovery of the amount has been issued. If this is found to be incorrect Court should not exercise its judicial discretion to grant relief of perpetual injunction under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act. It is not in dispute that arrears of electricity duty is to be recovered as arrear of land revenue. In the State, land revenue is recovered under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land. Reforms Act. Dues which are not land revenue but are to be recovered as arrear of land revenue are to be recovered under the Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, if the dues are public money as provided under the said Act. It is not disputed that arrears of electricity duty is not public money under the said Act. Therefore, this special statute is not attracted. Provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act which apply-to all other dues recoverable as land revenue. Rules have been made by State G9vernment under the Revenue Recovery Act. Authority authorised to collect the dues is required to issue a certificate to the Collector for recovery of the amount as arrear of land revenue in the prescribed form. A letter to Coll ector as in the letter, dated 24-3-1984 is, thus, not a certificate as envisaged under the Statute. Plaintiff misconceived such letter to be a certificate and court also did not consider the provisions of the Statute. Apart from a certificate being required to be issued in the prqforma, all the materials informations are required to be incorporated therein since a proceeding for initiation of coercive process is required to be clear in all respects. In letter, dated 24-3-1984 details of the amount sought to be recovered have, not been mentioned. Amount from November 1970 to September 1983 does not give a clear picture of the dues. However, it is not required to delve into the matter further as no certificate has been issued and as such apprehension of plaintiff that the amount mentioned in the letter, dated 24-3-1983 by coercive procedure is premature.;