- (1.) The petitioners have come up with two prayers.- (i) to quash the demand notice dated 5-3-1997 as contained in Annexures '9A, 9B and 9C' to the writ petition, which were issued pursuant to non payment of electrical bills by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 the U. P. State Electricity Board by grant of a writ of certiorari, (ii) to command the respondents not to start recovery proceedings against them without prior sanction of the B.I.F.R. by grant of a writ of mandamus.
(2.) A lot of submissions were made by Sri S. P.Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while trying to support the prayers with reference to several case laws. His main submissions were that as the proceedings were pending before the B.I.F.R. the bills cannot be paid without its sanction and that before the Electrical Engineer the petitioners had prayed for referring the dispute to the Electrical Inspector, which was not done illegally.
(3.) Sri Sudhir Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted, inter alia, that the prayers made by the petitioners are barred on account of applicability of the general principles of res judicata the petitioners should have moved the authority after depositing the disputed amounts mentioned in the bills subject to the result of the decision of the Electrical Engineer. The dispute was not referable to the Electrical Inspector as it was not a case of defective meter. He, too, placed reliance on a number of decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court.;