IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15271 of 2010 M/S SARAOGI PAPER MILLS PVT.LTD . Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ors. ----------- 3. 30.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). The petitioner is stated to be an industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of paper. It is aggrieved by the disconnection of its electric supply on 4.9.2010 for alleged theft of electricity and the consequent assessment dated 21.9.2010 fixed at Rs. 45 lacs tentatively subsequently enhanced to Rs. 50,37,746/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner bases his entire submission on a circular of the board dated 18.2.2010. It is submitted that it states in no uncertain terms that there is a distinction between seal tampering and meter tampering. There can be no presumption of meter tampering only because the meter seal may have been broken or tampered. It then proceeds to conclude that if definite information is available then it will not be appropriate to work on conjectures and surmises directing that the chip installed in the electronic meter should be immediately downloaded and all relevant informations be analysed to arrive at a conclusive opinion whether theft of electricity by tampering of meter had been committed or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this chip contains relevant information for past six months. Learned Counsel for the Board submits that the action has been taken after a raid carried out when certain seals of the 2 meter were found tampered. He is unable to demonstrate any material from the inspection reports that there was a positive satisfaction of tampering with the meter as distinct from presumption because of certain alleged tampering with the seal of the meter. In so far as the departmental circular dated 18.2.2010 is concerned he submits from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that they are matters for internal correspondence and are of no avail to the petitioner. No statement has however been made in the counter affidavit that the meter seized from the premises of the petitioner does not contain a computer chip. If it contains a computer chip there is again no statement in the counter affidavit why the authorities have not acted in pursuance of the departmental circular dated 18.2.2010 to down load the informations from the computer chip to arrive at a conclusive finding of tampering. The submission on behalf of the Board that the inspection reports are suggestive of tampering of the meter when the seals have been found tampered virtually amounts to the Board questioning its own circular dated 18.2.2010 by refusing to act under it when it is not open for the Board to do so. Prima facie this Court has noticed that the allegations against the petitioner can well be elaborately verified from the computer chip. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly acknowledged that the provisions for appeal require 50% of the demand to be paid. This Court therefore on the facts of the case pegs the demand against the petitioner at this stage to Rs. 45 lacs. There can be no justification for its enhancement unless and until the computer chip is first read. If the petitioner 3 deposits half of the amount pegged down by the court, the Board is directed to restore electric supply to the petitioner within 24 hours subject to due payment of all current charges by the petitioner failing which the Board is at liberty to act in accordance with law. The competent authority of the Board is expected to act expeditiously for down loading all necessary information from the computer chip and then take a final decision in accordance with law well reasoned and discussed in nature after making all relevant information from the computer chip available to the petitioner with an opportunity to meet the same. Let such fresh order in that manner be passed within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before it. If in the fresh decision the finding is in favour of the petitioner the competent authority shall give option to the petitioner if he wants a refund or desires adjustment of the excess amount paid by him if any. If the data analysed from the computer chip fixes liability on the petitioner as assessed or in excess thereof and a demand is raised by the Board the impugned order dated 21.9.2010 shall require no interference but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to question the same in accordance with law. The submission on behalf of the petitioner for quantification of the dues at this stage in accordance with any formula on which the petitioner may seek to rely in the opinion of the Court is premature at this stage as unless and until computer chip is not down loaded and analysed there can be no quantification of any 4 alleged dues against the petitioner and the liability under any such dues. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)