- (1.)DILIP Gupta, J. This Contempt Petition has been filed against two officers of the U. P. Power Corporation namely Sri V. K. Jain, Executive Engineer and Sri Har Bhagwan Arora, Deputy General Manager as well as against the District Magistrate Ghaziabad, Sri Santosh Yadav and the Tehsildar Hapur, Sri K. B. Singh with the allegation that the opposite parties have wilfully disobeyed the interim order dated 10th January, 2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 54627 of 2004.
(2.)THE aforesaid Writ Petition had been filed by the present petitioner for quashing the demand notices dated 6th April, 2004 and 12th April, 2004 that had been issued by the Executive Engineer/prescribed Authority, U. P. Power Corpo ration Limited, Hapur purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Sec tion 3 of the U. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958. In the said writ petition the U. P. Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Bhawan through its Chairman was arrayed as respondent No. 1 while the Executive Engineer Prescribed Authority, UP. Power Corporation Limited, Hapur was arrayed as re spondent No. 2. THE respondents were represented in the Court by their learned Standing Counsel. On 10th January, 2005 when the matter was taken up by the Court, the respondents prayed for and were granted three weeks' time to file the counter affidavit. THE petitioner was granted two weeks' thereafter to file the re joinder affidavit and the petition was directed to be listed thereafter. THE Court, considering the fact that the amount was sought to be recovered from the peti tioner who was not a consumer but an employee of the U. P Power Corporation Limited, also ordered that the operation of the notices/directions dated 6th April. 2004 and 12th April, 2004 issued by the Executive Engineer/prescribed Authority shall remain stayed.
It has been stated in the petition that the certified copy of the interim order dated 10th January, 2005 was sent by the petitioner to Sri V. K. Jain, Executive Engineer/prescribed Authority, who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 1 in this Contempt Petition, by registered post (in fact should be speed post) on 7th February, 2005. It has also been stated that this order was sent by post as the said officer refused to-receive the same on 18th January, 2005 and 3rd February, 2005. It has also been stated in the petition that when the applicant learnt that the said Executive Engineer was persuading Sri Har Bhagwan Arora, Deputy General Manager, Electricity Division, Ghaziabad, who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 4 in the present Contempt Petition, to initiate the recovery proceedings against the applicant, he also sent the interim order to him by registered post (should be speed post) on 28th February, 2005, In paragraph 5 of the Contempt Petition, it has also been stated that the office of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, in formed him that a letter had been sent by Sri Har Bhagwan Arora for initiation of the recovery proceedings against him and, therefore, he'submitted an application before Sri Har Bhagwan Arora on 30th May, 2005 to bring to his notice the afore said interim order dated 10th January, 2005, which application was received in his office on the same date In paragraph 6 of the Contempt Petition, it has been stated that Sri V. K. Jain persuaded Sri Arora for initiation of the recovery proceed ings against the applicant and Sri Arora in turn pressurised Sri Santosh Yadav, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 2 in this Contempt Petition, to initiate the recovery proceedings. Subsequently, Sri K. B. Singh, Tehsildar, Hapur, Ghaziabad, who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in this Contempt Petition, called the petitioner in his office and when informed about the interim order, merely asked the petitioner to approach Sri V. K. Jain for withdrawing the recovery letter sent to the District Magistrate. The appli cant, therefore, submitted applications before Sri Har Bhagwan Arora on 11th July, 2005, 5th August, 2005, 26th September, 2005, 20th October, 2005 and 7th November, 2005 which were received in the office on the same dates and copies of the applications along with the endorsement about receipt have all been an nexed as Annexures 6 to 10 to the petition In paragraph 7 of the Contempt Petition, it has been stated that in spite of the fact that the opposite parties had clear knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court, the applicant was on 9th November, 2005 in the morning by Sri KB Singh, Tehsildar, Hapur on the basis of the recovery to notices which had been stayed by this Hon'ble Court and put in civil prison. It has also been stated in the subsequent paragraphs that thereafter the wife of the petitioner requested Sri V. K. Jain for releasing her husband from the civil prison but no heed was paid and, therefore, she had to file a Habeas Corpus in this Court. It is only subsequently that Sri V. K Jain sent a letter to the Tehsildar on 10th November, 2005 to release the applicant who was then released on 10th November, 2005 from civil prison at about 10. 00 p. m. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it has been stated that. 9th November, 2005 had been fixed for performance of a formal ceremony in connection with the marriage of his daughter Reema Agarwal but the same could not materialise due to his arrest and that his arrest would also be creating hurdles in the performance of the mar riage of his daughter.

This Court on 20th December, 2005, while entertaining the Contempt Peti tion, issued notices to Sri Santosh Yadav, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and Sri K. B. Singh, Tehslidar, Hapur, District Ghaziabad as it found that a prima facie case had been made out.

(3.)AN application dated 13th February, 2006 along with an affidavit sworn on 10th February, 2006 was filed by Sri Santosh Yadav, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad for discharging the contempt notice issued against him. It was mentioned therein that the interim order dated 10th January, 2005 was never served upon him; that on 28th May, 2005 a recovery certificate was sent by the Power Corporation for recovery of the amount and in view of the said recovery certificate, the citation was issued against the petitioner on 24th June, 2005 and it is on the basis of this citation that the petitioner was arrested on 9lh November, 2005 as he did not deposit the amount. It has also been stated that the petitioner had challenged the recovery notices dated 6th April, 2004 and 12th April, 2004 but the citation that had been issued was on the basis of the demand notice dated 28th May, 2005 and that when the Executive Engineer sent the letter dated 10th November, 2005, the applicant was released from civil prison.
A counter-affidavit sworn on 13th February, 2006 was also filed by Sri K. B Singh, Tehsildar, Hapur repeating almost the same averments that had been made by the District Magistrate in his counter affidavit namely that the citation dated 24th June, 2005 had been issued against the petitioner on the basis of the recov ery certificate dated 28th May, 2005 sent by the Power Corporation and that recov ery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the demand notice dated 28th May, 2005 and not on the basis of demand notices dated 6th April, 2004 and 12th April, 2004. What needs to be mentioned is that, in the said affidavit there is no averment that the interim order dated 10th January, 2005 passed by this Court in the Writ Petition had not been brought to his notice.