- (1.) Heard Sri Vijendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.4.
(2.) The petitioner is a contractor who had been given a contract to perform a particular job by the respondent-department. It appears that certain equipments for installation in order for the contract had been made available but were lost or stolen. The petitioner was called upon to give an explanation to the same and also to make good the loss, keeping in view, the terms of the agreement. This is evident from the office memo dated 9th July, 2012 and the memo dated 12th February, 2013, copies whereof are annexure 6 and 7 respectively. The said memos clearly indicate that in the event of default of making good the loss, the amount shall be adjusted against pending bills pertaining to the contract of the petitioner.
(3.) Instead the respondents have resorted to issue a notice to the petitioner in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Rules, 1958. The said notice has been challenged before this Court contending that the recovery proceeding under the said Rules cannot be initiated, inasmuch as, such a recovery is not contemplated under the Act, under which the said Rules have been framed and for that reliance has been placed by the petitioner on Section-3 of the U.P. Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 read with Section 2(a) of the said Act. It is urged that the only nature of recovery that can be made under the said Rules is of consumption of the electrical energy and not otherwise.;