IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.609 of 2010 1. SANJEEV KUMAR S/O LATE BACHCHA PRASAD R/O ANDI GOLA, P.O. G.P.O., P.S., TOWN AND DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER CUM CHIEF ENGINEER, TIRHUT AREA ELECTRIC SUPPLY , MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, KALYANI, TOWN & DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE JUNIOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUB DIVISION, KALYANI, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 03. 04.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Board. The petitioner alleges that there were certain outstandings on account of electricity dues upon the premises purchased by him which were paid. The Board alleges that without proper restoration of supply the petitioner was committing theft of electricity leading to the institution of Muzaffarpur East Town P.S. Case No. 69 of 2009 on 19.2.2009 under Sections 135, 139 of the Electricity Act 2003. The revenue loss suffered by the Board was quantified at Rs. 5,50,000/-. That this amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- quantified by the Board as revenue loss has been deposited by the petitioner goes beyond the pale of controversy from the pleadings of the parties. The counter affidavit of the Board then rightly states that insofar as this payment is concerned, it shall 2 have to await and abide by the final adjudication by the Special Court of the criminal prosecution initiated. Learned counsel for the Board next invites the attention of the Court to the First Information Report and submits that this revenue loss of Rs. 5,50,000/- was over and above the previous outstanding dues on the premises. The counter affidavit of the Board has been affirmed by an Officer of the rank of Assistant Electrical Engineer. It was his duty to place the full and correct facts before the Court. If the First Information Report alleged any other dues apart from the revenue loss, the counter affidavit should have state so in clear and specific terms including the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits from paragraph-6 of the writ petition that an amount of approximately Rs. 19,541/- remains outstanding as dues of the previous owner which the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit. It is expected that the Board shall be more careful in future in filing counter affidavits placing full and complete facts. Let the electric supply line be restored forthwith if not already restored provided there are no other fresh outstanding dues which has not been brought to the attention of the Court by either party after the petitioner deposits the sum of Rs. 19,541/-. 3 If the petitioner represents for a provisional assessment bill in light of the aforesaid allegation of revenue loss, then unless the Board opined that it has no legal duty to furnish the same by a reasoned and speaking order, let the same be furnished to the petitioner within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)