JUDGMENT A.P. Sahi, J.
1. The petitioner attempts to resist the action of the respondents by which they are proceeding to sequestrate the agricultural land of the petitioner pursuant to the coercive recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner for electricity dues. The prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing the citation dated 18.6.2003 and the consequential auction of the petitioner's agricultural land on 14 8.2003 in favour of respondent No. 8 and for certain directions to the respondents as a consequence of the above reliefs as contained in prayer clauses (c ) and (d) of the writ petition.
2. The disclosure of the facts are not exhaustive in the writ petition and as such are being narrated herein after as gathered from the counter and rejoinder affidavits and the supplementary affidavits filed on record by the respective parties.
3. The petitioner admits having taken an electric connection for running an irrigation tube well in the year 1980. It is further-stated that on account of financial distress he could not pay the electricity dues entirely, and due to some minor default in payment, his electricity supply was disconnected which date has been admitted in the counter affidavit of Sri S.C. Srivastava, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department as 26.6.1985. The petitioner had. Also approached the respondent-electricity department for permanent disconnection which matter was kept pending as is narrated in the circumstances contained in the said counter affidavit and was later on accepted.
4. In spite of the aforesaid facts on 21.9.1991 a notice of demand under Section 3 of the U.P. Electricity Recovery of Dues Act, 1958 emanated against the petitioner for realisation of Rs. 14447/- as is evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner alleges to have moved an application on 3.10.1991 before the Executive Engineer to let him know about the correct dues as his electricity supply stood disconnected long back. According to the petitioner, in spite of the said application, no information was tendered to the petitioner thereafter, nor any notice or opportunity was ever given to the petitioner by any of the respondents about any proceedings pending against him or any intention of the respondents for proceeding to initiate recovery proceeding. The petitioner contends that he came to know of the action under challenge in this writ petition for the first time only on 16.8.2003 when the property of the petitioner was claimed by respondent No. 8 to have been purchased in some alleged auction dated 14.8.2003. Respondent No. 8, however, denies these facts and has stated that the petitioner had knowledge about the proceedings taken against him, as a notice for auction had been pasted at his door, and was also announced by beat of drums in the village. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 and 3 to 6 representing the State, in spite of time having been granted by this Court on 10.9.2003 and on the last occasion on 12,5,2005. Respondent No. 7, i. e. the Executive Engineer has already filed a counter affidavit as indicated herein above and respondent No. 8 has put in appearance through Sri N. D. Shukla and has filed a counter affidavit as also a supplementary affidavit questioning the correctness of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 7. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the auction purchaser, respondent No. 8, and has brought on record the order of the Collector dated 30.1.2004 which was recorded pursuant to the interim order dated 10.9.2003 passed by this Court in the present writ petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, and 3 to 6, Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate, holding; brief of Sri V.S. Misra, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 and Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no, 8.
6. Learned counsel for respondents No. 8 by his robust arguments, put up a spirited opposition to the maintainability of the writ petition on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of questioning the auction proceedings either under Section 285 (H) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 or by approaching the Commissioner under Section 285(1) of the said Act and secondly, that the petitioner had, in fact, approached the Commissioner by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in which he had been favoured with a stay order on 30.8.2003, which fact has not been disclosed before this Court in the writ petition and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground as well. The aforesaid fact of filing of the appeal is admitted to the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. It has been further stated that the said appeal has been dismissed in default and the stay order was discharged on 13.10.2003. The petitioner had also moved for restoring the same but after having filed this writ petition an application was moved on 24.10.2004 for withdrawing the said appeal in the changed circumstances and the emergence of new facts, which have come into existence and are on record, during the pendency of the present writ petition.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the subsequent events would demonstrate not only that the petitioner has been harassed and has been subjected to a long drawn battle of litigation designed to unlawfully deprive him of his valuable property, but would also level the argument of the respondents raised herein above as having become irrelevant in the circumstances of the case.
8. Having examined the aforesaid contentions, what transpires from the record as also from the order of the Collector dated 30.1.2004, is that the Executive Engineer of the Electricity Department in his counter affidavit sworn by Sri S.C. Srivastava candidly admits that, in fact, the electricity supply of the petitioner stood permanently disconnected and the case of the petitioner for permanent disconnection was finalised treating the date of permanent disconnection as 26.6.1985. It is also admitted in the said counter affidavit that it was on account of some default on the part of the petitioner that there was a delay in submission of the report of the concerned official for permanent disconnection; Even though there is no material to substantiate the aforesaid alleged default on behalf of the petitioner, yet the electricity department admits that there was only a sum of Rs. 2242.41 that was liable to be realised from the petitioner when the matter was being finalised for permanent disconnection. This fact has been further explained by the electricity department by saying that the petitioner had; been put to notice in the year 1986-87 for a demand of Rs.68863.99 which swelled later on to Rs.01,00,918.44. However when the date of permanent disconnection was ultimately held to be 26.6.1985, the petitioner was extended an adjustment of Rs.98674.03 whereafter only a sum of Rs.2242.41 was left to be realised from the petitioner. These facts, according to the order of the Collector dated 30.1.2004 which has been appended along with the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, were ultimately taken into account and a final report was submitted by the Executive Engineer on 17.12.2003 and 26.12.2003, according to which the petitioner was only liable to pay Rs. 2242.41. The Collector further goes on to record that since the matter was already engaging the attention of the Commissioner and also engaging the attention of this Court it would not be possible for him to adjudicate the matter and the representation was disposed of with the aforesaid findings in compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.9.2003. The petitioner has further substantiated his case by filing a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the report of permanent disconnection issued by the electricity department recording that the date of permanent disconnection was 26.6.1985 and that the petitioner did not utilise any electricity from 26.6.1985 onwards. Annexure-2 to the said supplementary affidavit gives the details of the account, clearly recording the facts which have already been stated in the counter affidavit of the electricity department ,and Annexure-3 filed along with the said supplementary affidavit is the office memorandum issued by the Executive Engineer dated 5.12.2003 withdrawing the demand against the petitioner after adjusting the same and recording that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs,2242.41 only. Learned counsel for respondent No. 8, however, relied upon a letter written by the Executive Engineer on 23.8.2003 to the A.D,.M. (F.R.), Jaunpur for realising the amount by way of recovery from the petitioner and has urged that, in case, the contention of the petitioner is to be believed , then there was no occasion for the Executive Engineer to have pressed for the recovery. It has further been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No. 8 that the affidavit filed by the electricity department should not be believed as all this has been manipulated at the instance of the petitioner to suit his purpose.
9. Upon having traversed the factual arena, the Court now proceeds to examine the legal contention advanced by the parties. A perusal of facts enumerated herein above establishes without fail that the recovery had proceeded on an absolute wrong premise of facts. This error of fact came to be fortunately corrected and rectified by the electricity department itself as is evident from the admissions made by the electricity department itself and the documents filed in support thereof relating to the permanent disconnection discussed herein above. Since this error of fact has been rectified and has been placed on record after judicial intervention has taken place, this Court has no option, on the face of those unassailable facts, but to accept the same as correct. This Court has a further duty to endorse the aforesaid action in favour of the petitioner, as no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Since there was no correct and lawful factual basis existing for initiating the recovery proceeding and the proceedings have been undertaken on a totally wrong premise, this Court has no hesitation in recording that the proceedings of recovery are vitiated in law. It is to be noted that under the provisions of the U.P. Electricity Recovery of Dues Act, 1958 no sum could have been recovered after it fell due upon an expiry of two years. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the petitioner himself acknowledges the correction having been made, and as such this question need not detain the Court any further. Admittedly, the amount which the electricity department has now chosen to recover only Rs.2242.41 which the petitioner has undertaken to pay. In this view of the matter, in fact, there was no occasion for recovery of the amount as referred to in the citation impugned in the writ petition and in the letter dated 23.8.2003 relied upon by respondent No. 8. The proceedings of recovery, therefore, have to fall on the basis of the factual admission made by the electricity department which have been brought on record. This being the position, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any mistake by not pursuing his alternative remedy before the Commissioner and having applied for withdrawing the same. The proceedings, therefore, under the U.P. Electricity Recovery of Dues Act, followed by coercive steps adopted by respondent No. 3 are totally unlawful and are hereby declared as such.
10. The second charge of the respondent No. 8 that the petitioner has failed to disclose the correct facts, looses its significance as against the startling facts which have now come on record during the pendency of the writ petition by way of admission try the electricity department. The petitioner, has described himself as a rural farmer having no access to the legal rigmaroles which aspect cannot be overlooked. The petitioner cannot be blamed squarely for any such lapse, as what can be inferred is, that a desperate attempt to save his meager belongings, he ran h er and skelter and did not deliberately intend to cause prejudice to any one. The petitioner was making bonafide efforts to save the property ,which in the light of the findings arrived at herein above, was being detached on the basis of proceedings which was founded on incorrect factual material. Thus, the petitioner's writ cannot be thrown out on this charge. The Court is tempted to draw support from the following lines in the case of Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. M.S. Chawla and Ors. : -
"...Laws cannot be interpreted and enforced,, divorced from their effect on human beings for whom the laws are meant. Undoubtedly rule of law must prevail but as is often said, "rule of law must run akin to rule of life. And life of law is not logic but experience'. By pointing out the error which according to us crept into the High Court's judgment the legal position is restored and the rule of law has been ensured its prestine glory."
11. It is said that sun light is the best disinfectant. Like the sun which dispels darkness., the facts of this case, remove the ignorance and dispels the doubts expressed by learned counsel for respondent No. 8. It has been urged on his behalf that the auction purchaser, i.e., the respondent No. 8 should not be deprived of the benefits of the auction on account of the lapses of the electricity department. In the opinion of the Court such a grievance can only be raised by way of claiming damages if permissible in law and not otherwise. At least, this writ petition must not fail and cannot fail on this ground. In these circumstances, reliance placed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 8 on the decisions pertaining to concealment of facts cannot lend any support to the stand taken by him.
12. It is already on record that the auction dated 14.8.2003 in favour of respondent No. 8 was not confirmed and that the petitioner still continues to retain possession of the land which was put to auction. Having recorded the findings, this Court concludes that the recovery proceedings were vitiated and as such the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner deserve to be granted.
13. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The entire recovery proceedings against the petitioner culminating into the auction dated 14.8.2003 are hereby quashed, "the petitioner shall, however, be liable to pay the dues of the electricity department as contained in the calculation submitted by the electricity department upon a submission of the report of permanent disconnection as contained in Annexures- 1, 2 and 3 of the supplementary affidavit of Sri S.C. Srivastava, Executive Engineer, Jaunpur sworn on 17.5.2005 and filed before this Court. The payment shall be cleared subject to any such dues as already having been paid by the petitioner. It shall also be open to the respondent No. 8 to claim the refund of his amount which he alleges to have deposited with the recovery authority pursuant to the auction proceedings dated 14.8.2003 and in case any such application is moved the recovery authority shall refund the amount of the respondent No. 8 deposited by him without any deductions immediately in accordance with law.
14. The writ petition stands allowed subject to the aforesaid directions.