# Vishanji Tokarsi v. The Collector, Kanpur Nagar and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 312
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-01-22
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vishanji-tokarsi-v-the-collector-kanpur-nagar-and-others-39724
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
312
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 129(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( 53 0,65$ -
7+( +21·%/( 53 0,65$ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

9LVKDQML 7RNDUVL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH &ROOHFWRU .DQSXU 1DJDU
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 9% 7LZDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6UL 6XGKLU $JDUZDO
6UL 5& <DGDY

83 *RYHUQPHQW (OHFWULFDO 8QGHUWDNLQJV
'XHV 5HFRYHU\ $FW 6
$
$SSOLFDELOLW\
7KH SOHD RI EDU EDVHG RQ WKH SURYLVLRQV
FRQWDLQHG XQGHU 6HFWLRQ $ RI WKH $FW
FDQ EH UDLVHG RQO\ DV GHIHQFH LQ D FLYLO
VXLW
WKDW
PD\
EH
ILOHG
DJDLQVW
WKH
FRQVXPHU IRU UHFRYHU\ RI DQ\ GXHV 7KH
SURYLVLRQV FRQWDLQHG XQGHU 6HFWLRQ B$
RI
WKH
$FW
KDYH
QR
DSSOLFDWLRQ
LQ
SURFHHGLQJV IRU UHFRYHU\ RI WKH GXHV DV
DUUHDUV RI ODQG UHYHQXH 7KH FRQWHQWLRQ
RI
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
KDV
QR
IRUFH
,W
GHVHUYHV
WR
EH
UHMHFWHG
DQG
LV
VR
UHMHFWHG

By the Court

1. Heard Sri V.B. Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri
Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel
of the State of U.P., representing the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Sudhir
Agarwal, learned counsel representing the
respondent No. 3, at length and in detail.
2. Though the petition is not
admitted formally yet it is ready for final
hearing in as much as requisite affidavits
between the parties have already been
exchanged. Learned counsel appearing for
the parties jointly pray and agree that the
petition may be disposed of finally. The
Court, therefore, proceeds to dispose of
the petition finally.

3. By means of the impugned
citation
dated
22nd
January,
1998,
photocopy whereof is Annexure `1' to the
petition, a sum of Rs.31,128/- is being
recovered from the petitioner as arrears of
land revenue towards the dues of Kanpur
Electricity
Supply
Administration,
Kanpur, Nagar, the respondent No. 3,
which, is indisputably, a Government
undertaking as defined in the Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Electrical
Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958,
hereinafter called the `Act'.

4. The petitioner seeks to challenge
the recovery of the amount on following
two counts :-

(A) that no notice of demand as
contemplated under Section 3 of the Act
was issued before issuing the recovery
certificate for the purposes of recovering
dues as arrears of land revenue ;and

(B)
that the recovery is barred by
limitation prescribed under Section
5-A of the Act.

5. It is not disputed on behalf of the
respondents that issuance of a notice of
demand to the petitioner under Section 3
of the Act was necessary and default
thereof
would
render
recovery
proceedings
invalid.
However,
the
respondents contend that requisite notice
1All] Vishanji Tokarsi V. The Collector, Kanpur Nagar and others
313
of demand was infact sent to the
petitioner. Therefore, the question that
arises for adjudication is whether the
requisite notice of demand under Section
3 of the Act was sent to the petitioner.

6. In paragraph 6/e of the counteraffidavit of Sri Virendra Srivastava, filed
on behalf of the respondent No. 3, it is
categorically asserted that the notice of
demand was sent to the petitioner at his
known address, House No. 84/76, G.T.
Road, Kanpur. The averment in paragraph
6/e of the counter-affidavit has been
replied by the petitioner in paragraph 6(e)
of his rejoinder-affidavit. In his reply the
petitioner
does
not
clearly
and
categorically plead that notice of demand
was never sent to him. What is stated by
the petitioner is that there was no reason
to send the bill at 84/76 G.T. Road,
Kanpur address of the petitioner when the
petitioner had requested to remove the
metre from the aforesaid premises and to
transfer it to 102-A, Dada Nagar, Kanpur.
After advancing the said logic petitioner
asserts "Be as it may be petitioner never
received CA 4 or any other bill".

7. It is to be noticed that Explanation
(1) of Section 3 of the Act provides that
sending of notice of demand by registered
post shall be deemed to be sufficient
service on the person concerned. In the
instant case plea of the petitioner is not
that no notice of demand was sent. Plea
taken in the rejoinder-affidavit is that
notice of demand was never received. In
the absence of any plea denying the
sending of notice of demand to the
petitioner, and keeping in view the
Explanation (1) of Section 3 of the Act, it
cannot be held that requisite notice of
demand under Section 3 of the Act was
not sent to the petitioner. Thus, the first
contention of the petitioner fails.

8. Coming to the second contention
of the petitioner about the limitation, the
Court
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
submission
is
based
totally
on
misconception
of
the
provisions
of
Section 5-A of the Act. The plea of bar
based on the provisions contained under
Section 5-A of the Act can be raised only
as defence in a civil suit that may be filed
against the consumer for recovery of any
dues. The provisions contained under
Section
5-A
of
the
Act have no
application in proceedings for recovery of
the dues as arrears of land revenue. The
contention of the petitioner has no force.
It deserves to be rejected, and is so
rejected.

9. All told in the opinion of the
Court, there is no illegality or infirmity in
the recovery proceedings in pursuance of
the impugned citation, founded on the
recovery
certificate
issued
by
the
respondent No. 3, warranting interference
by this Court in exercise of its special and
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The
petition is devoid of merits and is
dismissed
summarily.
The
interim
order/orders shall stand vacated. There is
no order as to costs.