Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was a LTIS consumer, having a connected load of 25 HP. Its line was disconnected allegedly on 29.11.2000, which the petitioner disputes and says that the line was not disconnected. But, according to the respondents, the line was disconnected on that date and after the disconnection, a raid was made allegedly on the premises of the petitioner when a load of 30 HP was detected, besides pilferage of power as against the alleged disconnection. This raid was made on 17.2.2001 and consequently, an FIR was lodged. The case of the petitioner is that no notice under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act was served upon it and the power was never -disconnected and whatever FIR was lodged is just on the, basis of some imaginary disconnection and allegation of pilferage is quite false.
(2.) TO the contrary, the case of the respondents is that by Annexure A, a notice, was served upon the petitioner on 25.9.2000. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the respondents admitted that this (Annexure A) is not a correct notice and produced the file of the Board to show that subsequently a notice was again sent by letter No. 2934 dated 6.11.2000, referring the earlier notice of 25.9.2000, again giving the petitioner a time of 7 days for clearing off the dues of Rs. 69,906/ - and ultimately a Certificate Case, vide Annexure C/1, was initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the Board's Circular as contained in the Dy. Financial Adviser's Circular, which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition; the extracted notification at page 138 of the same, running page 22 of the writ petition, reads as follows : - - "(2) Wherever possible the statutory 7 days' notice of disconnection should be served personally on the consumer under due acknowledgment. In such a case, if the consumer fails to pay up the dues within the period stipulated in the notice, it would be perfectly legal to disconnect supply of energy to the consumer without sending him any further notice. (3) In respect of IIT consumers and Industrial (medium pressures) consumers if energy bills are not paid by the due date the normal 7 days' notice should be sent straightway by registered post, duly prepaid and addressed properly to the consumer." Admittedly the petitioner is an Industrial Medium Pressure LTIS consumer, which is apparent from the Annexure I. Therefore, according to the petitioner, 'the Clause (3) of the Circular is applicable, according to which normal 7 days' notice should be served straightway by registered post, duly prepaid and addressed properly to the consumer.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that, this Circular is not in vogue and a new Circular is there. But when she was confronted as to what is the new Circular and was asked to produce the same, she rescinded from her stand.;