Raj Kumar vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran … on 23 January, 2009

RSA No. 1752 of 2007                1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                         RSA No.1752 of 2007
                        Decided on : 23-01-2009

Raj Kumar
                                                 ....Appellant

                   VERSUS

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another

                                                 ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

Present:- Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the appellant

MAHESH GROVER, J

The appellant was issued a demand notice to deposit

Rs.77,266/- vide notices dated 23.8.2005 and 30.8.2005. The appellant had

challenged the same by filing a suit for declaration that they are null and

void and also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking

to restrain the respondents from effecting the recovery of the aforesaid

amount.

The appellant did not dispute the amount but only the question

of issuance of notice on the ground that according to the Sales Manual and

Clause 7.3 thereof the notice could be issued only by the prescribed

authority which was the XEN, OP of the DHBVNL as defined in Section 2

(d).

A perusal of the impugned notices which have been referred to

in the impugned judgments shows that Ex.P-2 and P-3 are the notices issued

by SDO and a copy was sent to XEN (OP) Division, DHBVNL, Tohana.
RSA No. 1752 of 2007 2

Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated his objection to

the aforesaid notices by saying that they were not issued by the prescribed

authority.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the

considered opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant is without any merit. There is no dispute regarding the liability

which has been questioned only on the ground that the notices were not

issued by the prescribed authority. The notices have concededly been

issued by SDO with a copy to the XEN, (OP) Division, DHBVNL, Tohana.

It has not been shown as to how the appellant is prejudiced in the wake of

the fact that the liability has not been denied. The issuance of a notice by

SDO can at best be termed to be a irregularity and not the kind of illegality

which would defeat the demand made upon the appellant.

No ground to interfere.

Dismissed.

January 23 , 2009                                     (Mahesh Grover)
rekha                                                    Judge