- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the assessment demand notice/recovery certificate dated 6.6.2006 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Act, 1958 and order dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition). Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount in question by coercive process. Further a prayer in the nature of mandamus has been made by the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner on the basis of the order passed by this Court.
(2.) The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner who is running a Floor Mill, applied and given 98 KVA electrical load from the U.P. State Electricity Board. The power was disturbed and it was difficult to run the floor mill through electricity supplied by the respondents. Vide its letter-dated 7.7.2004 the petitioner requested the Executive Engineer respondent No.2 to discontinue the electricity supply. But nothing has been done. The respondent No.1 visited the premises of the petitioner to check the meter cubical installed at the petitioner's premises. On 11.8.2004, a checking was made and nothing was found in the said checking. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Kosi and Assistant Engineer (Meter) put new seals on the meter and meter cubical. The certificate, which has been issued by the petitioner clearly shows that the meter was found in order and there was no irregularity in the premises of the petitioner. On 16.9.2004 the Sub- Divisional Officer, Kosi along with other officers of the Corporation as well as Police Enforcement Squad visited the mill of the petitioner and checked the meter and it has been found that seal of the meter has been tampered. The electricity connection was disconnected on 16.9.2004.
(3.) Thereafter the petitioner was served with the provisional assessment bill dated 20.9.2004 and the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 17,49,099.00 towards the assessment. It appears that the aforesaid provisional assessment bill dated 20.9.2004 was issued by the Executive Engineer (Revenue) respondent No.3 in purported to exercise of power under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the said bill without mentioning the details as to how it has been calculated, the respondent No.3 mentioned an astronomical figure to the tune of Rs. 17,49,099/- required to be paid by the petitioner on or before 25.9.2004. The bill was not in accordance with the provision as required under Section 126 of the Act as such, the petitioner submitted an application. It has further been submitted that assuming without admitting that on 16.9.2006 some irregularities were found at the floor mill of the petitioner. Then the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the period anterior to 26.8.2004. The respondent No.2 was directed to decide the case in accordance with the U.P. Electricity Supply Code, 2002 as well as on the basis of evidence on record. Without passing the final order, the respondent No.2 exercising the power under Sections 3 and 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, issued a demand notice dated 23.10.2004, and the petitioner was required to pay within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the aforesaid demand notice.;