High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Executive Engineer,E.D.D.,Dakshinanchal V.Nigama Ltd.And Ors v. State Of U.P & Others - WRIT - C No. 57153 of 2006  RD-AH 19257 (15 November 2006)
HON.R.P. MISRA, J.
HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.
Counter affidavit filed may be kept on record.
Heard learned Standing Counsel Sri Alok Kumar Singh representing the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
The petitioner Corporation has filed a writ petition before this Court with the following prayers:
"a. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Kanpur, for taking reasonable & necessary action under Section 5 of the Electricity Recovery Dues Act 1958, to recover the dues of amounting Rs.4,60,18,171/- from the respondents otherwise petitioner will suffer irreparable loss & injury,
b. issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
c. Award the cost of the petitioner.
The allegations made in the writ petition are that the electricity dues are not being paid by respondent no.2 in spite of the disconnection of the electricity and various efforts made by the Corporation. Left with no option, the Executive Engineer, E.D.D. Hamirpur sent a notice to the District Magistrate for taking necessary action against respondent no.2 for recovery of the electricity dues as arrears under Public Money Recovery of Dues Act 1958.
The writ petition was entertained and the Standing counsel was directed to obtain the instructions and in view of the facts stated the respective District Magistrates of the districts were directed to be present before this Court. On the last occasion when the writ petition was listed, due to the election the District Magistrate was not in a position to appear before this Court and an application for exemption on that particular date was filed and the same was allowed.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate stating the fact that in view of the authorization given by the petitioner and the address given the efforts were made to recover the said amount. But in some cases, the address given by the petitioner was not correct and this fact was intimated to the petitioner-vide its letter dated 7.9.2005, Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit in W.P. No. 57134 of 2006. It has further been submitted in the counter affidavit that the address was not correct and on the address given by the petitioner, it was found that they are not available on the address given by the petitioner and the said fact was intimated to the petitioner.
We have considered the allegations made in the counter affidavit and the annexure filed in support thereof. From the record it is clear that there is no fault on the part of the district administration for taking steps to recover the amount authorized by the petitioner but as the address was not correct, therefore, they are not able to recover the same amount and this fact has been intimated to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is totally misconceived and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed and the personal appearance of District Magistrate, Hamirpur is exempted.
W.P. No. 57153 of 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.