IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1950 of 2010 1. Chandra Bhushan Kumar 2. Nagendra Sharma @ Rakesh Kumar, Both sons of Shri Lalan Singh R/O Vill- Gorhana, P.O- Neura, P.S Bihta, Distt- Patna. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna Through Its Chairman 2. The General Manager Cum Chief Eningeer, Central Area Electricity Board, Serpentine Road, Patna. 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, S.T.F. Board, Patna. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Null Electric Supply Division, Patna Rural, Patna. 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Meena Bazar, Electric Supply Sub Division, Phulwarisharif, Distt- Patna. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi. For the Board : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha. ---------- 04 14.05.2010 The two petitioners being sons of Shri Lalan Singh have come to this Court against the action taken by the respondent- Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and its officer. They have come to this Court making a grievance against the alleged inspection conducted by the Special Task Force (STF) and consequent allegation of theft of electricity. This alleged inspection gave rise to Bihta P.S. Case No.27 of 2009 dated 28.01.2009 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and was lodged by In-charge Assistant Engineer. The inspection was allegedly conducted at 2:30 PM and as per the F.I.R. it is alleged that the two petitioners being brothers were individually found running a Paddy Crusher and an Anta Chakki each with 5 HP motor, but they did not have any electric connection. To justify the allegation of unauthorized use of electricity, a seizure list was - 2 - prepared in respect of each of the machines showing 60 ft and 40 ft wire being used to unauthorizedly abstract electricity. There is, admittedly no seizure of any electric motors or any other equipment save and except two wires aforesaid. In the F.I.R. itself as against each of the petitioners it was alleged that they had caused the Board a loss of Rs.2,47,370/-. A perusal of the seizure list shows that seizure was witnessed by several Executive Engineers and Assistant Engineers, who were at the site and signed as witnesses, but the seizing authority is shown to be one Punam Kumari, In-charge Assistant Engineer working on contract. Petitioners alleged that apart from the F.I.R. being lodged, they heard nothing. They have now alleged that, in fact, for their residence they had domestic electric connection in the name of Lalan Singh, their father under DS-I category for rural connection. It is alleged that it is the service wire of this connection that was removed and falsely alleged that using that wire they were running the Anta Chakki and the Paddy Crusher by 5 HP motors. Unfortunately, neither the Paddy Crusher nor the Anta Chakki nor the 5 HP motors were seized. Petitioners submit that this whole exercise is mala fide and for harassing purposes. Because of these mala fide acts, petitioner no.1 is in jail custody in the present case for over a month as he is unable to deposit the amount alleged against him in the said F.I.R. as the loss caused to the Board and, as such, not being released. Seeing the gravity of allegations and counter - 3 - allegations, this Court directed, by order dated 07.05.2010, the Superintending Engineer of the Board to make an inspection and file a report and also directed that the alleged STF inspection report, which is statutory and mandatory under the Bihar Electric Supply Code, 2007 along with provisional assessment and final punitive assessment, which are statutorily required to be made in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act be produced along with the original file. This was because petitioner alleged that it was their domestic connection service line which had been taken and for disconnecting the domestic connection, all these false allegations have been made using this service line when in fact there was no STF inspection dated 28.01.2009 nor any such punitive assessment made thereafter. Today, a report has been filed. The report dated 12.05.2010 signed by various Officers is kept and made a part of records of these proceedings, copy whereof are given to both the learned counsels. It may be pointed out once again that the original inspection was done on 28.01.2009. We are in May, 2010. The first thing to be noticed from the report is, they admit that there are absolutely no records of the alleged STF inspection, no mandatory report in that regard, no provisional assessment order nor a final punitive assessment order. It is not stated that they were there but have vanished. Statement is clear that no such record could be found. That was the allegation of the petitioner that it is a wholly mala fide process. The Electricity Supply Code - 4 - mandatorily provides and has prescribed a report to be drawn by the STF at the time of inspection. It is statutory report for the safety of consumer. It is on basis of that report a statutory provisional punitive assessment in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act has to be made, which after considering objection has to be finalized, being a final punitive assessment. Not a chit of paper is there showing compliance any of those mandatory requirements. Thus, prima facie, the contention of the petitioners appears to be correct. The F.I.R. is nothing but a cock and bull story with mala fide purpose. Now, we come to the substantive part of the report. Petitioner no.2 is said to be present when on 12.05.2010, Superintending Engineer with others visited the premises pursuant to orders of this Court. It is admitted that there is 7.5 HP diesel engine (not to be confused with motor) and on the two sides of the engine are the Anta Chakki and the Paddy Crusher. There is no mention of any 5 HP motor. It is suggested that there is a three phase electric main line of the Board outside the premises about 45 ft away and the suggestion is that there is likelihood of that Board’s main line being used to unauthorizedly operate these units. Then, there is mention about a connection for domestic supply in the residential premises for which bills up to March 2010 have been shown as paid. It is curious to note that the inspection team finds no service line. In the report, it is also mentioned that the consumer stated that whenever he wants to use the electric - 5 - connection, he hangs a wire, when he does not, he takes it out. Suggestion being again that unauthorizedly tapping, main power is being used even in residence now. In my view, again prima facie, the contentions of the learned Lawyer for the petitioners appears to be correct. It is now admitted that when the inspection team visited, they found, in fact, that there was no service connection line. The service connection wire that is what petitioners alleged, had been taken away by the alleged STF inspection team and shown as seized wires. Having found this allegation, the suggestion and explanation has been given that the consumer would connect and disconnect at will. A far fetched and absurd allegation when the domestic connection is an authothorised supply why on earth the petitioners would connect and disconnect, especially when it is a DS-I rural connection. Then, when we come to the commercial user. The F.I.R. shows as if the crusher with 5 HP motor is in one premises and the Anta Chakki with a 5 HP motor is in another premises to justify allegations separately against the two petitioners. All that has been found to be false because on a concrete foundation, it was found that there was a 7.5 HP diesel engine (not motor) in one room with crusher one side and Anta Chakki on another, which is the usual configuration where the two are operated by diesel engine through a drive as commonly done in villages, no electricity is required. No motor is even found even in this inspection but a suggestion is made that those machines can run - 6 - with 5 HP motor trying to cover up the F.I.R. What is most curious is that assuming for the sake of argument, 5 HP motor is required then it is always a three phase motor which cannot be disputed. But, unfortunately, for three phase three wires of 40 ft each or three wires of 60 ft each ought to have been seized, as admittedly, the main line was 45 ft away from the premises, but what is seized is a single wire of 60 ft and from other alleged premises a single wire of 40 ft. That can never run a 5 HP motor, even if, it exists. This only substantiates petitioners’ plea that the whole episode is a cock and bull story. The net result is that neither there are any official records of the inspection because though the F.I.R. alleged, there are no STF reports, as mandatorily required. There is no provisional assessment, as mandatorily required under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. There is no final punitive assessment, as mandatorily required under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The seizure list does not show seizure of three wires for each of the motors. There is no seizure list showing seizure of any motor and also the premises and the room is one. It is falsely alleged that as if there were two rooms. There is no mention of the domestic connection in the same premises in the name of father of the two accused persons, who are petitioners before this Court where as that existed as a matter of fact since long before. If on these facts, the petitioners are allowed to suffer, it would only be travesty of justice. If, in fact, Board was sanguine about its claim of theft then - 7 - by now they should serve final assessment on the petitioners and demand its payments, for more than 1½ years have elapsed, nothing was done, because there were no records. There were no independent witnesses and still petitioner no.1 is rotting in judicial custody being unable to pay the mala fide demand, as per the F.I.R. In the circumstances, this Court firstly directs the immediate release of petitioner no.1, namely, Chandra Bhushan Kumar from judicial custody on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ACJM, Danapur in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No.27 of 2009. It is also directed that the respondent-Board permanently connects the domestic service connection of the petitioners to the Board’s main line. That there being no provisional assessment nor a final punitive assessment, no such assessment can now be made or enforced against the petitioners. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned ACJM, Danapur immediately. The writ petition is, thus, allowed in the terms aforesaid. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)