JUDGMENT Amarendra Nath Varma, J. - By means of this petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any action against the petitioners or their property in pursuance of certain recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the respondents. 2. The relevant facts are that one Bishun Kumar Singh, the husband of petitioner 1 and the father of petitioner 2 applied for and was sanctioned by the respondents an electric connection of 5.5 H.P. at his tube-well for agricultural purposes in the year 1965. According to the petitioners, Bishun Kumar Singh was murdered in the year 1968 leaving the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. A bill dated 29-6-70 was thereafter received by the petitioners stating that a sum of Rs. 1,717.30 was due against Bishun Kumar Singh. This bill was addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh. For various financial difficulties confronting the petitioners in the wake of the death of Bishun Kumar Singh, the amount of the bill could not be deposited as a consequence of which the electric supply to the tube-well of the petitioners was disconnected sometime in December 1970. Nothing happened thereafter for nearly 6 years whereafter in August 1976 the petitioners received a bill addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh showing that a sum of Rs. 12,944.92 and Rs. 155.00 were due from Bishun Kumar Singh for the month of August 1976. The amount was claimed as consumption charges for the electricity alleged, to have been consumed in connection with the tube-well. On receiving this bill the petitioners made representations setting out their difficulties and pointing out that Bishun Kumar Singh had died in 1968. There has not been any consumption of electricity after the electric supply was disconnected in 1970. The petitioners were hence not liable to pay the amount demanded through that bill. Subsequently the petitioners again received certain further demands which again were addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh who had already died. It is contended by the petitioners that in view of the fact that the electric supply was disconnected in 1970 they were not liable to pay the amounts which the respondents were seeking to recover from them in pursuance of notices of demand and recovery certificates addressed in the name of Bishun Kumar Singh. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that in view of the fact that the electric supply was disconnected in 1970 they were not liable to pay the amounts which the respondents were seeking to recover from them in pursuance of notices of demand and recovery certificates addressed in the name of Bishun Kumar Singh. 3. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed it is asserted that the amounts which are being sought to be recovered from the petitioners are in pursuance of notices of demand dated 21-6-76 and December 1976 which were duly served on Bishun Kumar Singh and upon his failure to make the deposit within the time specified in those notices the respondents validly initiated recovery proceedings by sending recovery certificates to the Collector in pursuance of those notices of demand. It is not disputed in the counter-affidavit that the notices of demand and the recovery certificates were all addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh and not to the petitioners. 4. Apart from reiterating the various legal submissions contained in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the respondents cannot legally recover any amount mentioned in the impugned notices of demand and recovery certificates inasmuch as they are all addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh who had died in 1968. In any case, neither the notices of demand nor the recovery certificates impugned in the writ petition being addressed to the petitioners, the respondents cannot legally recover the amounts mentioned therein from the petitioners by resort to coercive process. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel, we are of the opinion that this petition is entitled to succeed on a short ground. In the view that we are inclined to take on this ground it is not necessary for us to enter into the other legal questions which both the learned counsel for the parties have raised at the Bar. The ground is that admittedly the impugned notices and recovery certificates, true copies whereof are annexures C1, C2 and C3 to the counter-affidavit, are addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh and not in the name of the petitioners. The ground is that admittedly the impugned notices and recovery certificates, true copies whereof are annexures C1, C2 and C3 to the counter-affidavit, are addressed to Bishun Kumar Singh and not in the name of the petitioners. It is indisputable that before the respondents can proceed to recover any amount either as consumption charges or any other dues recoverable under the Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertaking (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958, a notice of demand has to be issued under S. 3 of the said Act. S. 3 provides : "Where any dues including the amount of security payable under S. 47 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 are payable by a consumer to a Government Electrical Undertaking the prescribed authority may,. at any time after thirty days from the date on which such dues accrued serve or cause to be served upon the person liable a notice of demand stating the name of the person, the amount payable by him and the undertaking in respect of which it is due." 6. It is only when such a notice of demand has been served on the person liable that the respondents could proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue or in the manner prescribed under that Act. No such notice of demand was admittedly served on either of the two petitioners. They are hence clearly entitled to the relief for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amounts mentioned in the aforesaid notices of demand and recovery certificates from the petitioners in pursuance thereof. However, if legally the petitioners are liable to pay the amounts claimed by the respondents through the impugned notices or recovery certificates they will have to serve a proper notice of demand on the petitioners so that the petitioners may comply with the same or take such objections in regard there to as may be available to them in law. 7. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that even if Bishun Kumar Singh had died the liability of the petitioners under the agreement executed by Bishun Kumar Singh did not cease. Consequently, it was open to the respondents to recover the amounts claimed through the notices from the petitioners. 7. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that even if Bishun Kumar Singh had died the liability of the petitioners under the agreement executed by Bishun Kumar Singh did not cease. Consequently, it was open to the respondents to recover the amounts claimed through the notices from the petitioners. We consider it unnecessary and premature to pronounce on the correctness of this submission as even if the petitioners are legally liable the respondents cannot proceed to recover the amount under the aforesaid Act unless they have issued proper notices to the petitioners and disposed of their objections such as they may file against the demand. 8. As already mentioned above, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the other submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, namely, that the petitioners were not liable for any amount after the disconnection of the electric supply to the tube-well. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are restrained from recovering any amount from the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned notices of demand and recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners vide annexures C1, C2 and C3 to the counter-affidavit. The aforesaid impugned recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs from respondents 1, 2 and 3.