IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9763 of 2005
Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Rajdeo Singh, resident of Village and P.O._Huraka, P.S.-Tilauthu, District-Rohtas. ....... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas.
3. The Certificate Officer, Dehri, District-Rohtas.
4. The Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Dehri, District- Rohtas.
.... Respodnents.
With
CWJC No.9912 of 2005
Suraj Kumar, son of Late Kedar Nath, resident of Sahu Market, Dharam Shala Road, P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Asst.Engineer Electric Supply Sub-division, Bihar State Electricity Board, Sasaram, Rohtas.
2. The Sub-divisional Certificate Officer, Sasaram (Rohtas). .... Respondents.
With
CWJC No.9920 of 2005
Manish Kumar, son of Late Bhagat Sah, resident of Mohalla Kabir Ganj (Sangam Lodge) P.O. + P.S.- Sasaram, District-Rohtas. ....... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Assistant Engineer Electric Supply Sub-Division, Bihar State Electricity Board, Sasaram (Rohtas).
2. Sub-divisional Certificate Officer, Sasaram (Rohtas). -----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate ( in all the cases) With Mr. Bajarangi Lal, Advocate. For the respondent-State : Mrs. Binita singh, A.C. to A. A. G. 1 ( in all the cases)
For the respondent-Board : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. -------------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. N. HUSSAIN
------
ORDER
06/ 25.08.2011 CWJC No.9763 of 2005 has been filed by the -2-
petitioner Sanjay Kumar Singh challenging order dated 14.05.2005 passed in Certificate Case No.11 of 2003-04 by which the Certificate Officer, Dehri in the district of Rohtas directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,98,523.00 without deciding the preliminary objection with regard to jurisdiction of that court and also challenging the entire proceeding of the aforesaid certificate case which was initiated against the petitioner due to non- compliance of the mandatory requirement mentioned in Schedule I of Clause 15 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act,1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity).
2. CWJC No.9912 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner Suraj Kumar challenging order dated 30.06.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Sasaram Rohtas by which the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.40,441.34 and also challenging the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No.16E of 2003-04 which was initiated against the petitioner due to non- compliance of the mandatory requirement mentioned in Schedule I of Clause 15 of the Act.
3. CWJC No.9920 of 2005 has been filed by the petitioner Manish Kumar challenging order dated 30.06.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Certificate Officer, Sasaram Rohtas by which the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.1,18,807.24 and also challenging the entire proceeding of Certificate Case No.17E of 2003-04 which was initiated against the petitioner due to non- compliance of the mandatory requirement mentioned in Schedule I -3-
of Clause 15 of the Act.
4. All the aforesaid three cases have been taken up together as common points were raised by learned counsel for the petitioner of all these cases as all of whom have low tension supply connections and for alleged non-payment on the said connections respective certificate proceedings had been initiated against the concerned petitioners directing them to make payment of the dues.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in domestic connection no agreement was required rather the requirement was only of the requisition which was never filed before the certificate Officer. It is also stated that in low tension supply connection the agreement was must without which no connection is granted, but no such agreement had been filed, hence the proceeding was not tenable. He also stated that requisition will not cover the agreement and a mere declaration in requisition will not serve the purpose. In this connection, he relied upon six decisions of a Bench of this court in case of M/s Sikhar Sikshit Berojgar Motor Pariwahan Co-operative Society Unlimited Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1994(2) PLJR 700; in case of M/s Murlidhar Sohanlal Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in 1998(3) PLJR 526; in case of Sunil Kumar Mehrotra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2003(3) PLJR 757; in case of Nav Bharat Link Chain Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(1) PLJR 487; in case of Kartik Kumar Vs. The Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd. -4-
& Ors. reported in 2004(2) PLJR 603; and in case of Mritunjay Kumar Singh & Anr vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004(2) PLJR 823.
6. From the aforesaid case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is quite apparent that in the aforesaid cases there were no term in the agreement for recovery under the Act, but in these cases it is quite apparent that petitioners in these writ petitions had given undertaking that the dues would be recoverable under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the said case laws are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of these cases, especially when the connections given to all the aforesaid three petitioners were under low tension supply.
7. Furthermore, clause 15 (iv) of Schedule-I of the Act clearly provides that any money payable to the Bihar State Electricity Board in respect of which the person liable to pay the same has agreed by a written instrument that it shall be recoverable as pubic demand, will come under the purview of the Act. In view of the aforesaid provision any undertaking given in the agreement or any independent undertaking given in writing will come within the term 'instrument' as mentioned in the said clause.
8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of these cases, this court does not find any merit in the aforesaid three writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. (S. N. Hussain, J.)
Sunil