Allahabad High Court
Puttan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 November, 2022
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR (Judgment reserved on 05.05.2022) (Judgment delivered on 01.11.2022) Court No. - 03 1. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27495 of 2021 Petitioner :- Puttan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,B.P.Singh Kachhawah,Manoj Kumar Singh,Rajesh Yadav WITH 2. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23674 of 2021 Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Srivastava,Deepak Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arti Raje 3. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1786 of 2022 Petitioner :- Satish Kesharwani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Mishra,Umesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sushil Kumar Pandey 4. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1858 of 2022 Petitioner :- Brahamdeen Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Singh,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Per: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)
1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Arti Raje, Sushil Kumar Pandey, Gaurav Singh and Krishna Agarawal, learned counsels for the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd./ Associated Power Distribution Companies, namely Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Rampur, Dakashinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jhansi etc. and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Since number of writ petitions were coming up daily before this Court raising grievances of creation of fake bills/ demands or highly excessive demands by the respondents, therefore, this Court took up one writ petition each on 8th 9th and 10th February, 2022 and called upon the respondents to respond to the contentions of the petitioners. Personal affidavit by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow has been filed mainly in Writ-C No.27495 of 2021. Brief facts of each writ petitions are being noted below.
Facts:-
Writ-C No.27495 of 20213. Aggrieved with creation of fake and fictitious demand of Rs.29,60,202/- by demand notice dated 27.07.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 which was subsequently raised to Rs.31,47,731/- for the period from January, 2017 to November, 2021; the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the demand notice. Copy of the ledger account filed by the respondent No.2 as Annexure CA-4 along with the aforesaid counter affidavit, revealed that the respondents debited monthly electricity dues in the account of the petitioner ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.6,15,472/- per month. Considering the facts of the case, this Court passed detailed orders on 08.02.2022, 15.02.2022, 03.03.2022, 24.03.2022, 19.04.2022, 26.04.2022 and 05.05.2022. On 09.02.2022, the respondent No.2 stated before this Court that the demand of Rs.31,47,731/- was wrongly created and it has been modified to Rs.2,45,952/-. In paragraphs-6, 7, 8 and 9 of the order dated 03.03.2022, this court observed as under:
"6. The personal affidavit filed by the Managing Director of Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Meerut, U.P. is more or less reiteration of the aforesaid personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary. He has also admitted in his personal affidavit the prevailing situation of errors in the consumer ledger, raising of fictitious demands, several lapses on the part of officers of the Electricity Distribution Division and dereliction of duties, negligence in performance of duties by the officers and employees and existence of fictitious arrears against consumers.
7. From the aforesaid two personal affidavits, it appear that an isolated decision against some officers of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Milakh, District Rampur has been taken, but nothing has been stated about the situation prevailing in the Power Distribution Corporation in the whole State of Uttar Pradesh. To give instances, Writ C No. 23674 of 2021, relates to a consumer of District Jhansi falling under Vidyut Vitaran Khand, Mauranipur, District Jhansi of Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited filed against fictitious demand and recovery certificate of Rs. 4,83,103.00. The above noted connected Writ-C No. 1786 of 2022 relates to a consumer of District Mirzapur falling under Purvanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited/Electricity Distribution Sub-Division-II, Fataha, District Mirzapur, challenging fictitious demand and harassment caused by arrest. The connected Writ-C No. 1858 of 2022 relates to a consumer of district Banda falling under Executive Engineer, Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Agra, wherein creation and attempt for fictitious demand of Rs. 1,61,448/ has been admitted by the respondents.
8. The above noted writ petitions have been mentioned merely as exemplars which, prima facie, show high handedness, illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondents against the consumers who are prima facie being harassed and robbed by raising fictitious/bogus electricity dues demands, well within the knowledge of respondent No.1 and Managing Directors of different Power Corporations and concerned authorities.
9. Facts as briefly noted above, particularly own averments of the respondents as aforequoted, prima facie, indicate maintenance of false and fabricated account/consumer ledger showing fictitious liabilities of consumers with no accountability or any serious efforts by the respondent No.1 to take strong steps to stop the prevailing situation and to save consumers from illegal and arbitrary actions and harassment by the officers and employees so as to preserve fundamental rights of people guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
4. In response, in the connected Writ-C No.23674 of 2021, a counter affidavit dated 17.04.2022 of Sri Alok Sinha, Additional Chief Secretary (Energy), Government of U.P., Lucknow has been filed. In paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, the Additional Chief Secretary on behalf of State of U.P., has stated as under:-
"8. That for the functioning of Standard of Performance of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulation Commission Uttar Pradesh government has gazetted through ordinance number U.P.E.R.C/ Secretary/Manual/656 dated 16.12.2019 where it is provisioned in schedule 18(iii) that if any consumer complaints about billing then if complaint is not resolved even after a definite time then consumer will be entitled for the payment of compensation as damage. Provisions are also there in S.O.P. for various other reasons of wrong Bills. It is also described in this S.O.P. that how a consumer can apply for compensation. By comprehensively advertising this S.O.P. and by increasing consumer vareness, compensation will be provided to aggrieved consumer. The loss incurred by the distribution companies for giving such compensation will be recovered from accused officer/staff personally. By this on one side aggrieved victim will get justice on the otherside limit will also be imposed on faulty employees. True copy of the ordinance number U.P.E.R.C/ Secretary/Manual/656 dated 16.12.2019 are being filed collectively here with and marked as ANNEXURE C.A.2 to this affidavit.
9. In order for strict compliance to stop the fraudulent practice of making/issuing fake bill to the consumer's, a detailed instructions has been issued to all discom of UPPCL vide letter no. 27/पी०एस०एम०डी०/पाकालि/2022 28 फरवरी, 2022 are being annexed with and marked as ANNEXURE C.A.3 to this affidavit.
10. U.P. Power Corporation has issued orders & instructions to ensure that no fraudulent bills are served to consumers which includes wrong billing due to billing without actual release of connection at site, billing for the period in which the consumer has not used electricity, wrong billing due to misfeeding of meter reading, issuance of exaggerated amount of section 5 notice under land recovery act etc."
5. After noticing certain facts on record, this Court passed an order dated 19.04.2022 (Paras 4, 5, 6 and 7) observing as under:-
"4. Learned counsels for the petitioners jointly submit that the respondents have filed false and misleading affidavits and in fact the authorities from bottom to top are hand in gloves and are involved in harassing ordinary consumers which results in extreme corruption. Learned counsels for the petitioners have drawn our attention to a news item published in a daily newspapers 'Hindustan' on 18.4.2022 titled as "अब बिजली बिल रिवीजन में करोड़ो रूपयों का घोटाला". They further submits that in this news item it is mentioned that the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited has constituted a special team to enquire into corruption of about Rs. 22 crores by departmental engineers and employees in matters of bill revision. However, neither in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1 there is any reference to any such enquiry nor in the letter of the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation, filed as Annexure 3 to the counter affidavit, there is any reference of any such enquiry.
5. In various affidavits filed before this Court in batch of these writ petitions, the respondents have made endeavor to give a picture as if actions are being taken but in reality, prima facie, it appears that practically no actions are taken. Despite there being commission of offences as indicated by us in our earlier orders, no material has been brought on record to indicate that any action has been taken by the respondent no. 1 or the Managing Directors of the concerned Power Distribution Corporation or the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited.
6. Learned Standing counsel submits that the respondent no. 1 shall bring on record details relating to enquiry purportedly instituted in matter of corruption relating to revision of bills. It shall not be out of place to mention that in the present batch of writ petitions fake demands were firstly raised and the grievance of the petitioners are not addressed by the respondents and when they filed writ petitions then respondents have admitted before this Court that fake bills/demands were created against the petitioners.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we direct the respondent no. 1 to file his personal affidavit within three days bringing on record the facts relating to enquiry instituted by the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation Limited in the matters of corruption in bill revisions, if any."
6. On 05.05.2022, the learned Senior Advocate for the Corporation filed a personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary (Energy), Government of U.P., Lucknow dated 02.05.2022, the parties were heard at length and the order dated 05.05.2022 (Paras-3 and 4) was passed, as under:-
"3. Several submissions have been made by learned counsels for the petitioners. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No.1858 of 2022 has submitted that the bill, as raised by the respondents, has been deposited by the petitioner but it still requires correction and issuance of fresh demand, which has not yet been done. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondents have caused harassment to the petitioner for years together including arrest which all are violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for which appropriate order needs to be issued by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the interest of consumers. It is further submitted that malpractices of creation of fake and fictitious demands and raising of fake bills are prevailing in different parts of State of Uttar Pradesh from a very long time which is also reflected from the order passed by this Court in the year 2001. Therefore, to save people from the corrupt practice and arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, it is in the interest of justice that a direction may be issued to the respondents to conduct a special audit to find out creation of fake and fictitious demands in ledger and raising of fake and fictitious bills. Learned counsels for the petitioner have also drawn attention of this Court to page nos.52, 121, 126, 130, 144, 170 and 176 etc. of the personal affidavit dated 02.05.2022 filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 by Shri M. Devraj, Principal Secretary (Energy), Government of U.P., Lucknow. They lastly submitted that the writ petitions deserve to be allowed with exemplary costs.
4. Learned Senior Advocate, on instructions of the respondent no.1, states that the respondents are ready and willing to follow directions of this Court with regard to special audit in the whole part of the State of Uttar Pradesh to find out fake and fictitious demands created in the ledger, raising of fake and fictitious bills etc. in the interest of general consumers, and also remedial steps for discouraging malpractices in the various offices of the Corporation."Writ-C No.23674 of 2021
7. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner applied for agricultural electricity connection of 7.5 KVA for his tubewell and deposited Rs.11,145/- on 26.02.2008 towards fees etc. as demanded by the respondents, but the respondents have neither granted electricity connection to the petitioner nor installed poles etc. On one hand, the respondents have not granted electricity connection to the petitioner and, on the other hand, they started raising demands of electricity dues against the petitioner. The respondent nos.2/3 issued a recovery certificate of Rs.4,83,103/- against the petitioner towards electricity dues and pursuant thereto, the respondent no.4 has issued a recovery citation dated 26.07.2021 for the aforesaid amount.
8. Aggrieved with the dues and action for recovery thereof by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. On 23.02.2022, this Court passed an order (Paras-6 and 7) observing as under:
"6. Today, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 has produced certain letters of the respondent nos.2/3 or the authorities subordinate to them which shows that a fake and bogus demand of electricity dues was created for years together against the petitioner and the petitioner has been continuously harassed. It is only when the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, then the respondents have withdrawn the recovery certificate. The papers (13 in number) produced by learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 are kept on record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and long practice of the respondents to raise fake bills/demands against electricity consumers, we direct respondent nos.1 and 3 to file counter affidavits by means of their personal affidavits annexing therewith copies of papers produced today by learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and copy of ledger account of the petitioner (consumer ledger account) and show cause as to why exemplary cost may not be imposed for harassing the petitioner for years together on the basis of fake and bogus demands created against him."
9. A counter affidavit by means of personal affidavit of Additional Chief Secretary on behalf of respondent No.1 dated 17.04.2022 has been filed and paragraphs-8, 9 and 10 thereof have already been reproduced above under the heading "Writ-C No.27495 of 2021."
Writ-C No.1786 of 2022:-
10. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:-
"(a) Certiorari - quash the impugned recovery citation dated 25.01.2021 issued by Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District-Mirzapur/Respondent no.3 and undated demand notice issued by the respondent no.4 (Annexure Nos.4 and 9) to this writ petition.
(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.4 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within stipulated period in the interest of justice.
(c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondent's authority for the act and conduct by which the economical, social and physical harassment of the petitioner was done and the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose the heavy cost upon the respondent's authority with regard the illegal activities and procedure adopted by the respondents."
11. Annexure 5 to the writ petition is the permanent disconnection report which reveals that electricity connection of the petitioner was disconnected permanently on 25.02.2003. As per report dated 19.08.2021 made on the aforesaid permanent disconnection, it appears that according to the respondent no.4, the electricity dues of the petitioner, as on the date of permanent disconnection, i.e., 25.02.2003, was Rs.9,444/-. However, respondent no.4 remained silent and issued a recovery certificate for Rs.3,82,169/- on the basis of which a citation dated 25.01.2021 for Rs.4,01,278/- (electricity dues - Rs.3,82,169/- + collection charge - Rs.19,109/-) was issued by the respondent no.3, i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur. The petitioner submitted an application dated 08.04.2021 before the respondent no.4 supported by an affidavit whereby he apprised the respondent no.4 of the entire facts and requested it to withdraw the demand.
12. Instead of withdrawing the demand, the petitioner was arrested on account of the aforesaid electricity dues of Rs.3,82,169/- and news of arrest was got published by the respondents in daily newspapers alongwith photographs. After the petitioner somehow deposited Rs.82,000/-, he was released from civil prison.
13. The petitioner submitted another application through his son dated 28.09.2021 before the respondent no.4 which was also not considered. Copy of the application was sent by the petitioner to various authorities, namely, District Magistrate, Mirzapur and Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, etc., but no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner, after being released, again submitted application before various authorities on 29.09.2021 and made serious allegations. Despite all these facts, the respondent no.4 again issued a notice to the petitioner showing dues of Rs.4,95,951/- as on 30.09.2021.
14. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that a manipulated, fake and baseless demand of electricity dues being pressed against him despite permanent disconnection on 25.02.2003, is not being redressed by the respondent no.4 and he is being harassed by the respondents.
15. In paragraph-10 of his counter affidavit dated 15.02.2022, the respondent No.2 (District Magistrate, Mirzapur) stated that to recover the aforesaid dues, the Tehsil Authorities took the petitioner under civil custody on 28.09.2021. Thereafter, an application supported by affidavit and a permanent disconnection report of the concerned authority requiring the petitioner to deposit only Rs.9,444/- as electricity dues, was submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner was released from civil custody. The dues found against the petitioner was only Rs.9,444/- as against the demand created by the respondents and consequential recovery citation issued for Rs.4,01,278/-.
16. In paragraph-4 of his counter affidavit dated 13.02.2022, the respondent No.4, i.e. the Executive Engineer stated that after the petitioner was arrested pursuant to recovery citation, his son represented and, thereafter it was found that actual dues are only Rs.9,444/- and the total up-to-date liability with disconnection charges was found to be Rs.11,166/- and, therefore, he instructed the Tehsil Authorities to release the petitioner from civil prison. Thus, alleged contention of the petitioner pursuant to fake/ fictitious demand created by the respondents, has been admitted by the respondents.
Writ-C No.1858 of 202217. This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the recovery citation dated 03.08.2021 issued by the respondent no.4 pursuant to the recovery certificate forwarded by the respondent no.3.
18. According to the respondent nos.2 and 3, the petitioner was granted an electricity connection of 1KW on 11.07.2014 and the meter was installed on 16.01.2019. According to the petitioner, he was given the electricity connection on 16.01.2019. It appears that a recovery notice of Rs.1,59,598/- was sent by the respondent no.3 which was immediately replied by the petitioner through application dated 08.01.2019 stating therein that the dues are totally fake and there is no electricity connection in the petitioner's shop. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 installed the meter for 1 KW load on 16.01.2019 as evident from the meter ceiling certificate dated 16.01.2019. Since the respondent no.3 was not taking any action and instead issued a recovery certificate of Rs.2,31,858/-, therefore, the petitioner submitted an application dated 07.10.2020 before the respondent no.3 requesting to inquire into the matter and withdraw the recovery certificate. Since nothing was done by the respondent no.3, therefore, the petitioner filed Complaint Case No.96 of 2019 (Brahamdeen vs. U.P. Power Corporation) in the Court of Consumer Forum Banda in which the respondent no.3 filed a written statement dated 25.04.2021. In the written statement, the respondent no.3 has clearly stated in paragraph 14 as under :-
"ystj ds vuqlkj cdk;k # 222639@&A vr% #161448@& {kn~e cdk;k lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA"
19. In paragraph 14 of the written statement, the respondent no.3 has stated as under:
";g fd ifjoknh dks la;kstu ls ekg vizSy 2020 rd # 61]191@& dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku fu;ekuqlkj djuk vfuok;Z ,oa vko';d gSA"
20. Thus, it is evident from the written statement of the respondent no.3 that as per his own case, fake dues of Rs.1,61,448/- was shown in the ledger and accordingly recovery was being pressed against the petitioner.
21. Thus, creation of fake dues and recovery thereof by the respondents from the petitioner caused the petitioner to file the present writ petition praying to quash the recovery citation dated 03.08.2021. The respondent No.2, i.e. the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. has filed his personal affiavit dated 14.04.2022 in which he admitted the fact of correct demand to be only Rs.61,191/-. He also indicated in his personal affidavit about initiation of certain action against certain officers/ employees. In paragraph-7 of his personal affidavit, he stated that the default is on the part of concerned officers in issuance of incorrect demand notice without referring to the modified bill.
Submissions:-
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the writ petitions submitted that the respondents are habitual of raising fake demands and thereby coercing individual consumers including their arrest/ detention and harrassment by various means which is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They submitted that from paragraph-8 of the personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary dated 17.04.2022 filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 in Writ-C No.23674 of 2021, it appears that some Rules have been enacted by the State Government for compensation but neither it has been precisely indicated in the counter affidavit nor complete copy thereof has been filed along with the aforesaid personal affidavit. They further submit that as per admitted facts, it is evident that raising of huge fake demands against the consumers and adopting coercive measures to recover it from them is a practice prevailing in different Electricity Distribution Corporation in the State of U.P. and grievances of consumers are not redressed as a matter of practice unless the consumer approaches the court or pleases the officers for redressal of his grievances. They further submit that the personal affidavit of the Additional Chief Secretary dated 02.05.2022 filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh itself would clearly reveal that a special audit conducted for a small period revealed not only creation of fake and fictitious bills against the consumers but also malpractices prevailing in various Power Distribution Corporation to reduce actual demands of certain consumers causing huge loss of revenue to the Corporation. Therefore, there is an urgent need not only in the interest of general consumers but also in the interest of the respondents that a special audit in the matter of these Distribution Corporations be directed to be conducted by an expert agency so that there may be a check on harassment of general consumers on one hand and on the other hand the Corporation may not suffer financially on account of fraud/ embazzlement being practiced by officers and employees.
23. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the respondents have taken all steps to correct wrongs and are ready and willing to take all actions as may be directed by this Court with regard to special audit in the whole of State of Uttar Pradesh to find out fake and fictitious bills created in the ledger in the interest of general consumers and also remedical steps for discuraging malpractices in various offices of the Corporation. A statement in this regard was given on behalf of the respondents which has been noted by this court in paragraph-4 of the order dated 05.05.2022 passed in the aforesaid leading Writ-C No.27495 of 2021.
Discussion and Findings:-
24. We have carefully considered the submisions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the records of the writ petition.
25. From the facts aforenoted, we find that although there exists "The Uttar Pradesh Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance), Regulations, 2019" (hereinafter referred to as "SOP Regulations, 2019") enacted by the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in exercise of power conferred under Section 181(1) and 181(2)(za & zb) read with Sections 57(1), 57(2), 59(1) and 86(1)(i) of the Electricity Act, 2003 but the aforesaid SOP Regulations, 2019 is not being observed by the authorities/ Associate Distribution Corporations and it remained only a paper work. Therefore, there is an urgent need not only for strict adherence to the aforesaid SOP Regulations, 2019 but also for its proper publicity regularly on website as well as in newspapers for the month of January and July each year and also to publish it, particularly compensation structure and information of procedure for filing complaints; at the back of electricity bills or separate handout which may be distributed along with bills as provided in Paragraph-9.4.3 of the S.O.P. Regulations, 2019. The aforesaid Regulations, 2019 as published in the U.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated 16.12.2019 is made part of this judgment as Appendix-I.
26. Perusal of clauses 2.1(g), 7, 8.4.1, 9.4.3, Schedule-I and Schedule-III of the SOP Regulations, 2019 would reveal that although provision for compensation for various deficiencies in service by the licencees/ Power Distribution Corporations have been made, yet on the facts of the present case, we find that no action for payment of compensation to the petitioners on the admitted facts of the present case have been made by the respondents. Considering the admitted prevailing practice of creating or issuing fake demands and issuing highly excessive bills against large number of consumers in the State of Uttar Pradesh and also to achieve the primary object of the SOP Regulations, 2019 and that every details of online complaints and resolution of complaints are to be maintained or are available with the concerned authorities of all the Associated Power Distribution Corporations, therefore, there is no need for lodging a separate claim by consumers under Para 8.4.1 of the SOP Regulations, 2019. Therefore, we issue a general mandamus to all concerned authorities of Power Distribution Corporations that they shall at their own compute compensation payable to complainants in terms of the SOP Regulations 2019 as per data available with them with respect to the each complaint and shall pay compensation in terms of the aforesaid SOP Regulations 2019 as per procedure provided. The need of filing claim by a consumer would arise only when the consumer on a given set of facts, finds himself dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the authority concerned.
Direction for Disciplinary Action:-
27. In the counter affidavit filed by the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation and also by the State Government, practice of creating fake demands and raising fake bills against consumers, have been admitted. The Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation has also admitted these facts in his Letter No.PSMD/ikdkfy/2022 dated 28.02.2022 addressed to the Managing Directors, Madhyanchal/ Purvanchal/ Pashimanchal/ Dakshinanchal Electricity Distribution Corporations filed as Annexure CA-3 in connected Writ-C No.23674 of 2021, in which he stated that issuance of bills to consumers of highly excessive amounts etc. and issuance of recovery notices/ certificates for recovery thereof not only causes unnecessary harassment to consumers but also creates possibility of corruption which despite instructions issued, are not being checked and which needs to be checked cent percent and in the event such matters come to light, then departmental proceedings be initiated against the erring officers and the compensation be paid to consumers to be recovered from the concerned erring officers/ employees. But facts of the present cases still reveal that neither any compensation was paid to petitioners nor any concrete action has been taken against the erring officers and employees. Therefore, we direct the respondents to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all the erring officers/ employees who have been prima facie found guilty of creating fake demands or issuing bills illegally against the petitioners and making recovery thereof; in accordance with law within three weeks from today and conclude disciplinary proceedings within next six months.
Directions for Special Audit:-
28. In paragraphs-5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the personal affidavit dated 02.05.2022 filed by the Principal Secretary (Energy), Government of U.P. Lucknow on behalf of the respondent No.1, it has been stated that in compliance to the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by this Court, the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation has informed to the State Government vide letter dated 22.04.2022 that for Electricity Distribution Division, Deoria for the period from 22.11.2018 to 02.11.2020 and for Electricity Distribution Division, Mahoba for the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2021, a special audit was conducted and special audit report was submitted to the Director Finance, UPPCL, Lucknow on 06.04.2022 which revealed serious discrepancies and action on the special audit reports are being taken against the erring officers/ officials. Copies of the aforesaid two special audit reports of Distribution Division, Deoria and Distribution Division-I & II, Mahoba have been filed as Annexures 2 and 3 respectively to the aforesaid personal affidavit.
29. The aforesaid two special audit reports of districts Deoria and Mahoba, reveal two sets of illegalities by officers and employees. The first set of illegalities is raising fake/ fictitious bills/ demands and creating fake/ fictitious bills/ demands in ledgers against consumers either against a very low amount of actual dues or even without electricity connection. The second set of illegalities is more serious which indicates embezzlement of very huge amounts running in several crores of rupees and thereby causing financial losses to the State Government/ Corporations by several means including embezzlement of permanent and also of temporary nature. These two special audit reports relating to two districts namely Deoria and Mahoba are eye opener for the State Government so as to prevent its own people from harassment and breach of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the one hand and on the other hand to protect its revenue and punish its officers and employees and officers/ employees of concerned Power Distribution Corporations who are involved in embezzlement or misappropriation or benefiting unscrupulous consumers thereby causing loss to the Government/ Distribution Corporations. The State Government is well aware of these malpractices prevailing in the whole of State of Uttar Pradesh and yet has requested this court for a direction to it for conducting special audit to take appropriate steps to curb the malpractices, as is evident from the statement made on behalf of the State Government and noted in the aforequoted order of this court dated 05.05.2022. Considering the large-scale malpractices, maintenance of false and fabricated ledger account of consumers showing fictitious liability and issuance of fake/ fictitious/ manipulated bills of electricity dues thereby causing serious harassment to consumers resulting in breach of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the one hand and on the other hand serious malpractices prevailing in Distribution Division of Associate Distribution Corporations in the State of U.P. causing huge loss of revenue to the State Government/ Power Corporation by means of embezzlement and other malpractices, we direct the State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Energy), Government of U.P. Lucknow and the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow to develop and put in place an effective mechanism within three months from today to check completely the illegal malpractices as briefly mentioned above and also pointed out in the two special audit reports of district Deoria and Mahoba including embezzlement of government money. We further direct that the State Government and the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation shall take all required steps for special audit, of each divisions in the districts falling under respective Distribution Power Corporations; by a competent expert body/ authority/ agency for such period as the State Government or the U.P. Power Corporation may deem fit. Audit report shall be submitted within six months which shall be examined by the competent authority within next one month and appropriate action shall be taken thereafter within next three months. We further direct the State Government and U.P. Power Corporation to put in place such mechanism or to improve the existing mechanism as they may think fit, within three months from today for regular check on the malpractices and embezzlement etc. as briefly discussed above and also those as indicted in the aforesaid two special audit reports of Distribution Division of Districts Deoria and Mahoba.
Responsibility of State Government and Accountability of its Officers and Employees and Compensation:-
30. In N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) 6 SCC 205 (Para 25) Hon'ble Supreme Court, held as under :
"25. But there the immunity ends. No civilised system can permit an executive to play with the people of its country and claim that it is entitled to act in any manner as it is sovereign. The concept of public interest has changed with structural change in the society. No legal or political system today can place the State above law as it is unjust and unfair for a citizen to be deprived of his property illegally by negligent act of officers of the State without any remedy. From sincerity, efficiency and dignity of State as a juristic person, propounded in nineteenth century as sound sociological basis for State immunity the circle has gone round and the emphasis now is more on liberty, equality and the rule of law. The modern social thinking of progressive societies and the judicial approach is to do away with archaic State protection and place the State or the Government on a par with any other juristic legal entity. Any watertight compartmentalization of the functions of the State as "sovereign and non-sovereign" or "governmental and non-governmental" is not sound. It is contrary to modem jurisprudential thinking. The need of the State to have extraordinary powers cannot be doubted. But with the conceptual change of statutory power being statutory duty for sake of society and the people the claim of a common man or ordinary citizen cannot be thrown out merely because it was done by an officer of the State even though it was against law and negligent. Needs of the State, duty of its officials and right of the citizens are required to be reconciled so that the rule of law in a Welfare State is not shaken. Even in America where this doctrine of sovereignty found its place either because of the "financial instability of the infant American States rather than to the stability of the doctrine's theoretical foundation", or because of "logical and practical ground", or that "there could be no legal right as against the State which made the law" gradually gave way to the movement from, "State irresponsibility to State responsibility". In Welfare State, functions of the State are not only defence of the country or administration of justice or maintaining law and order but it extends to regulating and controlling the activities of people in almost every sphere, educational, commercial, social, economic, political and even marital. The demarcating line between sovereign and non-sovereign powers for which no rational basis survives has largely disappeared. Therefore, barring functions such as administration of justice, maintenance of law and order and repression of crime etc. which are among the primary and inalienable functions of a constitutional Government, the State cannot claim any immunity. The determination of vicarious liability of the State being linked with negligence of its officers, if they can be sued personally for which there is no dearth of authority and the law of misfeasance in discharge of public duty having marched ahead, there is no rationale for the proposition that even if the officer is liable the State cannot be sued. The liability of the officer personally was not doubted even in Viscount Canterbury4. But the Crown was held immune on doctrine of sovereign immunity. Since the doctrine has become outdated and sovereignty now vests in the people, the State cannot claim any immunity and if a suit is maintainable against the officer personally, then there is no reason to hold that it would not be maintainable against the State.
(Emphasis supplied by us)
31. In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India and others, (1996)6 SCC 530 (Para 26), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"No public servant can say "you may set aside an order on the ground of malafide but you cannot hold me personally liable". No public servant can arrogate to himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary".
32. In Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 558, Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval of the observations of Edmund Burke, as under:
"An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will, who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit."
33. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction and Another AIR 1996 SC 715 (Para 6) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"A democratic Government does not mean a lax Government. The rules of procedure and/or principles of natural justice are not meant to enable the guilty to delay and defect the just retribution. The wheel of justice may appear to grind slowly but it is duty of all of us to ensure that they do grind steadily and grind well and truly. The justice system cannot be allowed to become soft, supine and spineless."
34. In Mohammad Iqbal and Anr. v. State of U.P. and others 2016 (9) ADJ 593 (Para 11 and 17), this Court held as under:
"11. In a democratic system governed by rule of law, Government does not mean a lax Government. The public servants hold their offices in trust and are expected to perform with due diligence particularly so that their action or inaction may not cause any undue hardship and harassment to a common man. Whenever it comes to the notice of this Court that Government or its officials have acted with gross negligence and unmindful action causing harassment of a common and helpless man, this Court has and never would be a silent spectator but always react to bring authorities within rule book or to make them accountable."
17. We, therefore dispose of this writ petition with cost of Rs.2 lacs which shall be paid at the first instance by respondent-1 since respondent-3 is the official and agent of respondent-1, but it shall have liberty to recover such amount from authority concerned who is responsible for such illegal action of detention of petitioner's vehicle on 3.10.2014 and onwards."
35. In Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2002, (2012) 10 SCC 1 (Para 172 and 184) Hon'ble Supreme Court held, as under:
"172.The judgment in LDA case brings out the foundational principle of executive governance. The said foundational principle is based on the realisation that sovereignty vests in the people. The judgment, therefore, records that every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. The fundamental principle brought out by the judgment is that a public authority exercising public power discharges a public duty, and, therefore has to subserve general welfare and common good. All power should be exercised for the sake of society. The issue which was the subject-matter of consideration, and has been noticed along with the citation was decided by concluding that compensation shall be payable by the State (or its instrumentality) where inappropriate deprivation on account of improper exercise of discretion has resulted in a loss, compensation is payable by the State ( or its instrumentality). But where the public functionary exercises his discretion capriciously, or for considerations which are malafide, the public functionary himself must shoulder the burden of compensation held as payable. The reason for shifting the onus to the public functionary deserves notice. This Court felt that when a court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State, the ultimate sufferer is the common man, because it is taxpayers' money out of which damages and costs are paid.
184. Another aspect which emerges from the judgments (extracted in paras 159 to 182, above) is that, the State, its instrumentalities and their functionaries, while exercising their executive power in matters of trade or business, etc. including making of contracts, should be mindful of public interest, public purpose and public good. This is so, because every holder of public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State, or its instrumentalities, is ultimately accountable to the people in whom sovereignty vests. As such, all powers vested in the State are meant to be exercised for public good and in public interest. Therefore, the question of unfettered discretion in an executive authority, just does not arise. The fetters on discretion are clear, transparent and objective criteria or procedure which promotes public interest, public purpose and public good. A public authority is ordained, therefore to act, reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest."
(Emphasis supplied by us)
36. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 (Paras 8, 10, 11 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that under our Constitution Sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law.
37. The respondents are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They are public functionary. As per Constitution, the sovereignty vests in people. Every government functionary including the public authorities are obliged to be people oriented. The public officers are public servants and they have been employed to serve people. They are accountable for their illegal acts and for violating the Constitutional and Statutory provisions. They cannot be a cause for harassment to the people.
38. The sufferer of the high-handedness and inaction of the government officers and employees, are ordinary citizen or a common man who is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. Sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. Servants of the government are in fact servants of the people. Therefore, the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. If a public functionary acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but it is abuse of power for which the law does not protect them and they must suffer. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil.
39. In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated which erodes the credibility in the system. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.
40. Once it is found by the competent authority that a complainant is entitled for compensation for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law, then payment of the amount may be made to the complainant from the public fund immediately but it may be recovered from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour. This legal position is reflected from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority's case (supra). In the said case it was further observed by the Apex Court that the Administrative law of accountability of public authorities or their arbitrary and even ultra vires actions has taken many strides and it is now accepted both by this Court and English Courts that State is liable to compensate for loss or injury suffered by a citizen due to arbitrary action of its employees.
41. The legal principles as enumerated in foregoing paragraphs also finds support of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 1; State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and others (1995) 5 SCC 659; Chief Conservator of Forests and another (1996) 2 SCC 293; S.P. Goel vs Collector Of Stamps, Delhi (1996) 1 SCC 573; Common Cause A. Registered Society Vs. Union of India JT 1999 (5) SC 237: AIR 1999 SC 2979; Chairman, Railway Board and others Vs. Chandrima Das (Mrs.) and others (2000) 2 SCC 465; State of A.P. Vs. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy and others (2000) 5 SCC 712; Research Foundation for Science (10) Vs. Union of India (2005) 13 SCC 659; M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 3 SCC 399; Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and others (2008) 9 SCC 527; Action Committee, Unaided Private Schools and others Vs. Director of Education, Delhi and others (2009) 10 SCC; Delhi Jal Board Vs. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and others (2011) 8 SCC 568; Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Vs. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association and others (2011) 14 SCC 481.
Breach of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Compensation for Illegal Detention:-
42. Arrest and detention of defaulter for recovery as arrears of land revenue is governed by the provisions of Section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 and Rules 144, 145 and 146 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2006.
43. Any person committing default in payment of an arrear of land revenue may be arrested and detained under Section 171 of the Code in Tehsil lock-up and if there is no such lock-up, at such other place as may be prescribed, for a period not exceeding fifteen days, unless the arrears are sooner paid. But if the defaulter liable for arrest or detention is (a) a woman or a minor or a senior citizen of 65 years or more, or a period referred to in Section 95(1)(a); (b) belongs to the Armed Forces of the Union; or (c) is exempted under Sections 133, 135 or 135A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, he shall not be arrested or detained. After the warrant of arrest of a defaulter is issued by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector, the defaulter may be arrested by the officer or official named in the arrest warrant authorised to and execute the arrest warrant. Soon after the arrest, the defaulter shall be produced before the officer issuing the warrant. If he pays or undertakes to pay the whole or a substantial portion of the arrears and furnishes adequate security therefor, the arrest warrant may be cancelled. If he does not do so, then he may be detained provided the officer issuing the arrest warrant has reason to believe that the process of detention will compel the payment of the whole or substantial portion of the arrears. Thus, under Section 171 (3) of the Code, 2006 read with Rule 144 of Rules, the officer concerned is required to decide on the basis of the material before him and any evidence tendered or submission made by the defaulter, whether there is any justification for detaining the defaulter. It is only when the officer records his satisfaction that the detention of the defaulter will compel him to make the payment of the whole or a substantial part of the arrears, he can order his detention.
44. While dealing with the similar provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rules, similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Agrawal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1983) 4 SCC 276 (Paras 11 and 17).
45. In Om Prakash Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 5 AWC 4012 (Paras 10 and 13), a Division Bench of this court held that keeping in mind the fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, harsh method of arrest and detention of the defaulter to coerce the defaulter to make payment should not be resorted unless the officer records his satisfaction that the defaulter inspite of having sufficient means, has wilfully and with mala fide intention refused to pay.
46. In Jolly George Varghese and Anr. vs. The Bank of Cochin, (1980 ) 2 SCC 360, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means, arrest of the defaulter would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
47. In K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2019 )1 SCC 1 (Paras -123, 127, 135, 136, 137, 145, 145.1, 145.2, 145.3, 145.4, 145.5, 147, and 508.18 to 508.23), explained the principles of human dignity and and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was held that jurisprudentially, three types of models for determining the content of the constitutional value of human dignity are recognised. These are: (i) Theological Models, (ii) Philosophical Models, and (iii) Constitutional Models. Over a period of time, human dignity has found its way through constitutionalism, whether written or unwritten. We have a written Constitution which guarantees human rights that are contained in Part III with the caption "Fundamental Rights". One such right enshrined in Article 21 is right to life and liberty. Right to life is given a purposeful meaning by this Court to include right to live with dignity. Thus, human dignity is a constitutional value and a constitutional goal. It has now been well recognised that at its core, human dignity contains three elements, namely, intrinsic value, autonomy and community value. These are known as core values of human dignity.
48. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as authoritatively explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy's case (supra) and in recovery matter in Jolly George Varghese and another (supra), squarely apply to the facts of the present case, establishing a clear breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the respondents. Under the circumstances, this court cannot close its eyes and fold its hands or remain a silent spectator and thus, allow people to suffer who usually do not have resources and financial capacity to fight against the high-handedness of mighty officers of the State Government.
49. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16386 of 2020 (Shiv Kumar Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), decided on 11.06.2021, this Court noted the policy decision of the State Government dated 23.03.2021 for payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/- for illegal detention of a person and directed as under:-
"24. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :-
(i) The State Government shall ensure that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as referred in the policy decision dated 23.03.2021 are strictly followed/observed by all the concerned officers.
(ii) The State Government shall further ensure that paragraph 12 of the policy decision dated 23.03.2021 is strictly implemented, which at the cost of repetition is reproduced below:
¼1½ Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn&21 dk mYya?ku djrs gq;s fdlh O;fDr dh voS/k fgjklr fd;s tkus ds fy, vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk tkap esa nks"kh ik;s tkus ij mRrjnk;h vf/kdkjh ds fo:) m0iz0 ljdkjh lsod ¼vuq'kklu ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1999] fn vky bafM;k lfoZlst ¼fMflIyhu ,aM vihy½ :Yl] 1969 ,oa m0iz0 v/khuLFk Js.kh ds iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dh ¼n.M vkSj vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 1991 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ esa laxr fu;eksa ds varxZr n.MkRed dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA ¼2½ vuq'kklfud izkf/kdkjh }kjk viuh tkap fjiksVZ 03 ekg esa vFkok laxr fu;ekoyh esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr le;kuqlkj izLrqr dh tk;sxhA ¼3½ ;fn fdlh ukxfjd dh voS/k :i ls fgjklr izekf.kr ik;h tkrh gS rks ihfM+r O;fDr dks :0&25]000@ dh /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku eqvkots ds :i esa fd;k tk;sxkA
(iii) The State Government shall publish Para 12 of its Policy decision dated 23.03.2021 in all largely circulated National Level Newspaper having circulation in the State of Uttar Pradesh and shall also display it on display board at prominent places within public view, in all blocks, Tehsil Headquarters, Police Stations and in campus of District Collectorate in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(iv) Copy of this order shall be sent by the State Government to all District level and Tehsil level Bar Associations in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh."
50. The petitioner of Writ-C No.1786 of 2022 was illegally detained by the respondents resulting in breach of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, respondents are liable to pay compensation to the said petitioner for his illegal detention. Consequently, in the light of the above-quoted policy decision of the State Government for compensation on illegal detention, we direct the respondents to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner of Writ-C No.1786 of 2022 for his illegal civil detention which shall be paid within one month from today.
51. For all the reasons stated above, all these four writ petitions are partly allowed and the demands to the extent admitted by the respondents to be illegal or fictitious are hereby quashed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to each petitioners and with the following directions:-
(a) There is an urgent need not only for strict adherence to the aforesaid SOP Regulations, 2019 but also for its proper publicity regularly on website as well as in newspapers for the month of January and July each year and also to publish it, particularly compensation structure and information of procedure for filing complaints; at the back of electricity bills or separate handout which may be distributed along with bills as provided in Paragraph-9.4.3 of the S.O.P. Regulations, 2019.
(b) Considering the admitted prevailing practice of creating or issuing fake demands and issuing highly excessive bills against large number of consumers in the State of Uttar Pradesh and also to achieve the primary object of the SOP Regulations, 2019 and that every details of online complaints and resolution of complaints are to be maintained or are available with the concerned authorities of all the Associated Power Distribution Corporations, therefore, there is no need for lodging a separate claim by consumers under Para 8.4.1 of the SOP Regulations, 2019. Therefore, we issue a general mandamus to all concerned authorities of Power Distribution Corporations that they shall at their own compute compensation payable to complainants in terms of the SOP Regulations 2019 as per data available with them with respect to the each complaint and shall pay compensation in terms of the aforesaid SOP Regulations 2019 as per procedure provided. The need of filing claim by a consumer would arise only when the consumer on a given set of facts, finds himself dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the authority concerned.
(c) In the counter affidavit filed by the Chairman of the U.P. Power Corporation and also by the State Government, practice of creating fake demands and raising fake bills against consumers, have been admitted. The Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation has also admitted these facts in his Letter No.PSMD/ikdkfy/2022 dated 28.02.2022 addressed to the Managing Directors, Madhyanchal/ Purvanchal/ Pashimanchal/ Dakshinanchal Electricity Distribution Corporations filed as Annexure CA-3 in connected Writ-C No.23674 of 2021, in which he stated that issuance of bills to consumers of highly excessive amounts etc. and issuance of recovery notices/ certificates for recovery thereof not only causes unnecessary harassment to consumers but also creates possibility of corruption which despite instructions issued, are not being checked and which needs to be checked cent percent and in the event such matters come to light, then departmental proceedings be initiated against the erring officers and the compensation be paid to consumers to be recovered from the concerned erring officers/ employees. But facts of the present cases still reveal that neither any compensation was paid to petitioners nor any concrete action has been taken against the erring officers and employees. Therefore, we direct the respondents to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against all the erring officers/ employees who have been prima facie found guilty of creating fake demands or issuing bills illegally against the petitioners and making recovery thereof; in accordance with law within three weeks from today and conclude disciplinary proceedings within next six months.
(d) We direct the State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Energy), Government of U.P. Lucknow and the Managing Director of the U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow to develop and put in place an effective mechanism within three months from today to check completely the illegal malpractices as briefly mentioned above and also pointed out in the two special audit reports of district Deoria and Mahoba including embezzlement of government money. We further direct that the State Government and the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation shall take all required steps for special audit, of each divisions in the districts falling under respective Distribution Power Corporations; by a competent expert body/ authority/ agency for such period as the State Government or the U.P. Power Corporation may deem fit. Audit report shall be submitted within six months which shall be examined by the competent authority within next one month and appropriate action shall be taken thereafter within next three months. We further direct the State Government and U.P. Power Corporation to put in place such mechanism or to improve the existing mechanism as they may think fit, within three months from today for regular check on the malpractices and embezzlement etc. as briefly discussed above and also those as indicted in the aforesaid two special audit reports of Distribution Division of Districts Deoria and Mahoba.
(e) The petitioner of Writ-C No.1786 of 2022 was illegally detained by the respondents resulting in breach of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, respondents are liable to pay compensation to the said petitioner for his illegal detention. Consequently, in the light of the above-quoted policy decision of the State Government for compensation on illegal detention, we direct the respondents to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner of Writ-C No.1786 of 2022 for his illegal civil detention which shall be paid within one month from today.
52. The cost shall be paid by the respondents to each of the petitioners within one month. Additionally the respondents shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for illegal detention of the petitioner of the Writ-C No.1786 of 2022 within one month from today.
53. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar General of this Court to the Chief Secretary of Government of U.P., Principal Secretary (Energy) Government of U.P. and the Managing Director of U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow for immediate compliance.
Order Date :- 01.11.2022 NLY Appendix-I