JUDGMENT G. P. Mathur, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the citation dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) and for restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.
2. M/s. Nehru Steel Rolling Mills (hereinafter referred to as the Rolling Mills) was sanctioned a load of 700 K.V.A. and an agreement was executed between the aforesaid Rolling Mills and U. P. State Electricity Board (U.P.S.E.B.) (now U. P. Power Corporation Ltd.). On behalf of the Rolling Mills, the agreement was signed by the petitioner Anuj Bansal. On 11.5.1994, a check/raid of the Rolling Mills was done by the staff of U.P.S.E.B. and they found that theft of electricity was being committed. The electricity connection was disconnected on the same day and thereafter an assessment bill of Rs. 92,92, 215.40 was issued. Subsequently, a final bill was prepared on 13.12.1995 for Rs. 1,25,22,329 and recovery was sought to be made in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
3. It appears that the Rolling Mills filed Suit No. 424 of 1994 challenging the recovery proceedings. On the objection of U.P.S.E.B., the suit was dismissed as not maintainable. This was challenged by the Rolling Mills by filing Civil Revision No. 141 of 1998 in the High Court, which was also dismissed on 15.4.1998. The Rolling Mills also preferred an appeal under Regulation 23 of the U. P. Electricity Supply Consumers Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations, 1984) against the assessment order but the same was dismissed by the Area Appellate Committee of U.P.S.E.B. on 3.9.1996. The Rolling Mills then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14060 of 1998 challenging the assessment order and also the appellate order. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an order on 13.5.1998 restraining the U.P.S.E.B. from realising the amount on the basis of the assessment order, provided the petitioners deposited half of the amount claimed within one month. Sri P. K. Jain, who is counsel in both the writ petitions has admitted that the Rolling Mills did not comply with the aforesaid condition imposed in the said order dated 13.5.1998 and did not deposit any amount. Thus, no stay order is operating in favour of the Rolling Mills.
4. Sri R. K. Jain, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri P. K. Jain, advocate has submitted that in view of the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and also the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Narain Agarwal v. State of U. P., AIR 1984 SC 1213, the objection made by the petitioner ought to be decided first before he can be arrested in proceedings for recovery of the amount.
5. U. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, provides for recovery of the electricity dues as arrears of the land revenue. Section 279 (1) (b) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act lays down that an arrears of land revenue may be recovered by arrest or detention of the defaulter. Therefore, there is no impediment in the way of the respondents in recovering the amount by arrest or detention of the petitioner who had signed the agreement on behalf of the Rolling Mills with the U.P.S.E.B. The procedure for arrest and detention of the defaulter contained in Section 279 (1) (b) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act has been held to be not violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India in Ram Narain Agarwal v. State, AIR 1984 SC 1213, In G. S. Agarwal v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 1224, it has been held that recovery of dues under the U. P. Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 read with Section 279 (1) (b) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by arrest and detention of a defaulter is perfectly valid. Therefore, there is no illegality of any kind in the procedure adopted by the respondents to recover the amount.
6. The contention of Sri Jain that on earlier occasion, recovery certificate had been returned by the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer and, therefore, no fresh steps should be taken for recovery of the amount has absolutely no substance. In the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.3,2002, it was mentioned that the property of the unit was mortgaged with a bank which had the first charge. This, in our opinion, cannot act as a bar for initiation of fresh recovery proceeding. Until the dues of respondent No. 4 are recovered, it is fully entitled to take all steps available in law to recover the amount.
7. The record shows that the Tehsildar has sent notice on 25.9.2002 directing the petitioner to appear before him on 19.10.2002 for making payment of the electricity dues of Rolling Mills. At the moment, only a notice has been sent to the petitioner to appear before the Tehsildar. The notice further mentions that if he did not appear on the date fixed, then a warrant may be issued for attachment of his property and for his arrest. The aforesaid document shows that at the moment, the petitioner has merely been asked to appear and no steps have actually been taken to arrest him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection filed by the petitioner should be decided first before arresting him, cannot be accepted at the present stage. We do not find any such observation in Ram Narain Agarwal (supra) which may support the contention raised by Sri Jain.
8. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage.