# Harihar Man Singh v. The Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board U.P. and another Oppo. Parties

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 47
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18926 of 1998
- **Bench:** G.P. Mathur, A.C.J. Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harihar-man-singh-v-the-chairman-u-p-state-electricity-board-u-p-and-another-40055
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226- Mode
of charging electric tariff-- Tube well
operators in rural areas- connection
given
for
agriculture
purpose
by
charging as per schedule L.M.V. 5- w.e.f.
16.7.94 the Board started charging as
per LMV 6- despite of offer given by the
board they continued with rural feeder-
can not be permitted to challenge on the
ground of duration of supply hours-
However if such representation made -
counsel for board assured to decide the
same in accordance with law.

Held- para 7

The petitioners have admittedly entered
into agreements for supply of electricity
and the respondents are charging them
as per the agreed terms and rates. They
were given an option for change from
urban feeder to rural feeder, which they
did not avail and are continuing to get
their power supplies from the urban
feeders. Having opted for the same, they
cannot now complain that they be
charged at the rate schedule as for those
getting supplies from rural feeders.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Harihar Man Singh Vs. The Chairman, U.P. State Electricity Board U.P. and another
47
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, A.C.J.
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18926 of 1998

Harihar Man Singh
 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Chairman, U.P. State Electricity
Board U.P. and another ...Oppo. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.N. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhir Agarwal

Constitution of India, Article 226- Mode
of charging electric tariff-- Tube well
operators in rural areas- connection
given
for
agriculture
purpose
by
charging as per schedule L.M.V. 5- w.e.f.
16.7.94 the Board started charging as
per LMV 6- despite of offer given by the
board they continued with rural feeder-
can not be permitted to challenge on the
ground of duration of supply hours-
However if such representation made -
counsel for board assured to decide the
same in accordance with law.

Held- para 7

The petitioners have admittedly entered
into agreements for supply of electricity
and the respondents are charging them
as per the agreed terms and rates. They
were given an option for change from
urban feeder to rural feeder, which they
did not avail and are continuing to get
their power supplies from the urban
feeders. Having opted for the same, they
cannot now complain that they be
charged at the rate schedule as for those
getting supplies from rural feeders.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. This is a bunch of writ petitions
involving common questions of fact and
law and hence they are being decided by a
common judgment. In most of the writ
petitions counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged. The writ petition
no. 18926 of 1998 (Harihar Man Singh v.
Chairman, UPSEB and others) is being
taken up as the leading petition.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the petitioners as well as Sri Sudhir
Agarwal for the respondent U.P. State
Electricity Board (supra).

3. It is the case of the petitioners that
they operate their tube well pumps in
semi urban and rural areas and for that
purpose they have taken electricity
connections from the respondent UPSEB.
It is the contention of the petitioners that
since they are running the tube well
pumps for agricultural purposes i.e. for
irrigating their agricultural fields, rate
schedule applicable to them should be the
schedule for private tube well pumps in
rural areas, as given in schedule LMV-5.
The
petitioners
contend
that
w.e.f.
16.7.1994, the respondent U.P. State
Electricity Board has started charging the
petitioners under rate schedule of LMV-6
which is for those getting electricity
supplies from non rural urban feeders.

4. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioners have challenged the electricity
bills issued to them on the basis of the
revised traffic rates placing them in LMV6 category. The main grounds of
challenge are that prior to the change in
schedule of rates, the petitioners were
never given any opportunity of hearing. It
has been contended by the learned
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
counsel for the petitioners that the change
in rate schedule is causing undue hardship
to the petitioners, who are all farmers and
such action of the respondent -UPSEB is
hit
by
the
doctrine
of
legitimate
expectation.

5. On behalf of U.P. State Electricity
Board, it has been submitted that the rate
schedule for LMV-5 is for those who get
power supply from the rural feeder and
LMV-6 is for those who get supply from
Urban feeder. Private tube well operators
getting supply from the urban feeder are
mainly those who are near the urban areas
or within the Municipal areas or Town
areas, whereas those who are connected
with rural feeders are normally in the
backward and rural areas. The distinction
between the two is that the supply through
the urban feeder is more regular and is
even upto twenty two to twenty four
hours per day, whereas the supply through
the rural feeder is irregular and at odd
times, may be only for a few hours in a
day. It has been submitted that thus the
differences in rate schedule for the two
classes of consumers is a reasonable
classification.
It
has
further
ban
submitted. That in any case, all the
consumers have been given an option to
take supply either from the rural feeder or
from the urban feeder, for which the
letters had been issued to the consumers.
One such letter has been filed as
Annexure CA-4 with the counter affidavit
of the respondent, U.P. State Electricity
Board in the present writ petition. It has
thus been contended by the respondents
that the petitioners who are voluntarily
availing the facility of power supply from
urban feeder, cannot claim that they be
charged at the rates applicable to those
getting supply from the rural feeder.
Learned counsel has submitted that the
rate schedule is fixed under the provisions
of the Indian Electricity Act and it is a
well settled principle that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation cannot be claimed
against the provisions of a statute.

6. It has further been submitted that
the petitioners have not challenged the
revised traffic rate schedule as applicable
from 16.7.1994 but have only challenged
the bills raised by the respondent for
consumption of electricity which have
been filed as Annexure to the writ
petition. It has also been submitted that
the traffic has again been modified w.e.f.
23.6.1999 and now within the rate
schedule of LMV-5, two categories have
been made for consumers operating
pumping sets. The classifications are
similar in nature, inasmuch as pumping
set operators taking supply from rural
feeders and urban feeders have been
classified separately within the rate
scheduled of LMV-5 itself. The same is
also not under challenge before us.

7. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the view that the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, that the change in rate
schedule is hit by the doctrine of
legitimate
expectation,
is
not
well
founded. The petitioners have admittedly
entered into agreements for supply of
electricity
and
the
respondents
are
charging them as per the agreed terms and
rates. They were given an option for
change from urban feeder to rural feeder,
which they did not availed and are
continuing to get their power supplies
from the urban feeders. Having opted for
the same they cannot now complain that
they be charged at the rate schedule as for
those getting supplies from rural feeders.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Praveen Kumar Gupta Vs. D.M./ Collector, Allahabad and others
49
8. We thus find that the writ
petitions are devoid of merit and are
accordingly dismissed. However, the
respondents have themselves stated in the
counter affidavit as well as their counsel
has made a statement at the Bar that in
case the petitioners so desire and apply to
the respondent-UPSEB for being supplied
electricity through the rural feeder for
which
charges
are
lesser,
their
applications for such change of feeder
shall be considered. We thus direct that in
case
if
the
petitioners
file
such
applications
before
the
respondentUPSEB, they shall consider the same in
accordance with law and pass appropriate
orders expeditiously, preferably within
three months from the date of filing such
application.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, A.C.J
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52746 of 2002

Praveen Kumar Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Mishra
Sri U.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anurag Khanna
S.C.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Act-section 281-a person cannot be
arrested and detained again in recovery
proceedings relating the same arrear - if
the arrears are different, the prohibition
from detention will not apply. (Held in
para).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.)

Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, counsel for
the
petitioner,
Sri
Anurag
Khanna
appearing for respondent no. 3 and
learned standing counsel. By this writ
petition the petitioner has prayed for a
writ
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents not to arrest the petitioner in
pursuance of the recovery proceedings
initiated against him by citation No.
072219 dated 30th October,2002.

The facts giving rise to this writ
petition briefly stated are;

Petitioner is one of the Directors of
Private
Limited
Company
namely
Allahabad
Fertilizer
Sales
Private
Limited. A loan of Rs.73,00,000/- was
taken from the respondent no. 3 by the
aforesaid Company. The Company failed
to repay the loan as a consequence of
which proceedings for recovery was
initiated against the Directors citation
dated 14th October, 1997 for an amount
of Rs.1,46,40,165.98 was issued against
which writ petition No. 42659 of 1997
was filed. The writ petition was finally
decided on 24th April;,1998 by which
Directors were permitted to sell off its
Company and its assets. However, the
Directors
were
unable
to
sell
the
Company and repay the loan. Another
citation dated 19.7.1999 for an amount
Rs.1,87,32,191.30
was
issued
in
pursuance
of
which
petitioner
was
arrested by the revenue authority on 10th
August,1999 and was detained in custody
till 25th October,1999. Another citation
dated 13.6.2001 was issued for an amount
of Rs. 4,29,09,935.31. Petitioner filed