IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.623 of 2009 RAM CHANDRA PRASAD S/o Late Dular Prasad Singh, Resident of Indrapuri, Road No. 1, P.O.- Keshri Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna- 800024 ----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD having its Office at Vidhyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (West), Patna. 3. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Patliputra, Electric Supply Undertaking (West), Patna -13 4. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electricity Supply Sub Division, Patliputra, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Patna- 13 ---------------------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Adv. For the Respondent Electricity Board: - Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Adv. ---------------- 7. 10.4.2009 The main grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inspection has not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act. It is submitted that there is no compliance with the provisions relating to search and seizure and with respect to domestic connection, a huge amount of penal bill has been raised whereas the petitioner has been paying the bill regularly for much lesser amount. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was compelled to sign on the inspection report because of the threat of the officials of the Board and the Police, he being a retired government official. It is also submitted that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner against the penal bill of Rs. 5,44,755/-. Further, it is contended that the amount has not been calculated in the manner as required by law and even the connected load has been shown to be excessive by at least 2 Kilo Watt in terms of the procedure for assessment given in the guidelines laid - 2 - down by the circular dated 27.8.2001 issued by the Board by including both Geyser and Air Conditioner in making the assessment of connected load. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, It is stated that the petitioner was found committing theft since there was a changer installed resulting in bypassing of meter. Learned counsel for the petitioner countered the same by saying that the said changer was required for the purpose of operating the generator and the same cannot lead to any conclusion of bypassing of the meter if the changer itself was after the meter and not before it directly connected from the electric connection. Since an F.I.R. has already been lodged in the matter, the aforesaid facts are now for the Criminal Court to decide if the matter goes there after a final investigation is completed and chargesheet, if any, is filed. In the above circumstances, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be required to pay any further amount under the penal bill dated 19.12.2008 for Rs. 5,44,755/- apart from the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- that he has already deposited, and his civil liability shall abide the decision of the Special Court in terms of Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above directions. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)