K.N. Seth, R.S. Singh, JJ. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the demand made by the UP State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) for electric charges for energy consumed by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner 7 -1/2 HP of electric energy was sanctioned and an agreement was entered into between the Petitioner and the Board. After some time the Board started sending bills drawn up on the basis that the Petitioner was taking 10 H.P. load of electric energy. It has been asserted that the Petitioner made protests on that ground but to no effect. The Petitioner gave an application on 10 -4 -1975, praying that the supply be disconnected as he has been unsuccessful in boring the well. The Board ultimately on 30 -10 -1975 terminated the agreement with effect from June 1975. Inspite of the termination of the agreement the Board sent a bill for Rs. 4100/ -and odd which included the charges upto August, 1975. The stand taken by the Petitioner was that he was liable to pay only on the basis that he had 7 -1/2 HP electric connection and that his liability to pay the charges came to an end in June, 1975 and no demand for any further period could be made.
(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board it has been admitted that the Petitioner was wrongly billed on the basis of 10 HP connection and that he should have been billed on the basis that he had a 7 -1/2 HP connection. It is also not disputed that the Board finally agreed to put an end to the agreement executed by the consumer with effect from June, 1975. Obviously the Board was not justified in making a demand for the period subsequent to June, 1975. The demand made by the Board deserves to be quashed. The demand made by the Board was sought to be recovered by coercive process. Since the Petitioner failed to pay the amount claimed by the Board, he was got arrested on 21st June, 1976 and was detained in civil prison for a period of fourteen days. The coercive action initiated by the Board for recovery of demand made by it was wholly illegal as it was based on an illegal demand. The Petitioner had to suffer imprisonment on account of the illegal demand made by the Board for which he could hardly be compensated.
(3.) FOR the reasons set out above we allow this petition and quash the demand and the recovery proceedings initiated by the Board. The Petitioner is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 500/ -. It would be open to the Board to submit a fresh bill on the basis of 7 -1/2 HP connection for the period ending June, 1975.;