IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6520 of 2009 Sony Tryoon, son of Late Rajendra Tryoon, resident of Thakur Bari Road C/o Bazar India, Kadamkuan, PS Kadamkuan, District Patna – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2) The Chairman, BSEB, Vidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3) The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Bankipur, PESU (East), Patna. 4) The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electricity Supply Subdivision, Bankipur, Patna – Respondents. 6 27.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, respondent no. 4 in exercise of the power conferred under section 126(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 wherein revised demand of Rs.9,93,193/- has been raised which has been challenged as being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and passed in a perfunctory manner relying on an MRI report which was earlier not disclosed to the petitioner. The inspection was made at the petitioner’s premises on 30.4.2008. The inspection report is contained in Annexure 1. The MRI report initially said that there was no defect in the meter. The second inspection thereafter was conducted on 17.3.2009. The meter was sealed and thereafter it was sent for MRI reading. The first reading and a bill raised on the reading of the meter was supplied to the petitioner on 17.3.2009 and covered the period from 2.3.2009 to 16.3.2009. The petitioner is aggrieved by the report supplied to 2 him vide the impugned order contained in Annexure 5. The C.T. report indicates that there was a tampering from 26.8.2008 to 7.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the MRI report which was issued on a later date is a tampered report inasmuch as there is a difference in the manner in which the report has been prepared. It is submitted that his name is not written. The date on which the MRI report was received, has not been mentioned and, therefore, the documents has been created by the Board. Counsel for the Board submits that while taking C.T. scan of the meter, the entire reading of the electricity used (misused) can be deciphered through the chip which records the mater reading and as such there is no question of tampering. Apart from the aforesaid facts several points have been raised with regard to validity of the bill which was supplied later. At present this court cannot test whether the bill was validly raised by the Board. These facts will be tested before the criminal court where evidence will be led regarding this aspect. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the Board is high handed. It is submitted that the procedure for testing has not been followed. Earlier this court has passed an order restoring the line of the petitioner vide order, dated 21.5.2009 by stating that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 300,000/- in five equal 3 monthly instalments, the first to be paid on or before 31st May, 2009 and remaining four installments’ on or before the last day of each succeeding four months and it was further observed that if receipt is produced with regard to payment of first installments, then the authority of the Board shall restore the electrical connection to the petitioner within 48 hours. I see no reason to change the terms and conditions for restoration of the electricity connection having regard to the fact that since there is a bona fide challenge to the second bill raised on behalf of the Board, it will always be subject to the evidence that is led in the case. In the case of M/s. Zee Saheb Cosmetic Zone vs. Bihar State Electricity Board, 2010 (4) PLJR 863 this court while considering sections 125 (5) and (6) along with section 126 of the Electricity has observed as follows : “Here, I may note one another aspect. Section 127 of the Act provides that the order of the appellate authority would be final. Though Section 127(4) makes such an order of the appellate authority final, it must be kept in mind that this is a determination in a quasi judicial proceedings of liability but when we refer to provisions of Section 154(5) of the Act, it would be seen that once a criminal case is lodged then it would be the Special Court, which is the Criminal Court, which has to determine the civil liability against the consumer in terms of money for theft of energy and sub-section (6) of Section 154 provides that if a consumer had deposited any amount in excess of the calculation as made by the Special Court, the same shall be refunded along with interest. Thus, it would be seen that so far as authorities are concerned, the determination made by them is final in the quasi judicial proceedings as before them. That is subject to a judicial determination in theft cases upon evidence in a trial by Special Criminal Court whose finding would supersede that of the authorities under the Board. This is the scheme and, as such, in all matters of assessment of unauthorized user of electricity including theft assessment has to be made in terms of Section 26 of the Act and the same is appealable in terms of Section 127 of the Act which order would ultimately be subject to determination by the 4 Special Criminal Court in terms of Section 154(6) of the Act. Thus, the petitioners are not remediless against the final assessment.” In the circumstances the petitioner would have a right to appeal, if so advised, against the order of the final assessment ,but the order would be subject to the decision taken in terms of sections 126 and 127 of the Act. I may observe here that the Board should prepare a consolidated reading of the meter, as opposed by the manner in which it has been done. Such production of meter readings done on different dates for different periods raises suspicion. Therefore, a consolidated report should be presented by the Board. I see no difficulty in this procedure, as according to the learned counsel for the Board, the sole chip contains all the data of the use of electricity. This procedure will make the entire process transparent. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observation. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)