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