IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14751 of 2011 1. M/S Archem Drugs Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, Plot No. 15, Industrial Area, Fatuha, through its Director, Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Kumar Suman, S/O Shri Kamla Kant Singh, R/O Ramachak, P.O.- Akauna, P.S.-Mashudhi, Distt.- Patna. 2. M/S Archem Care Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, Plot No. 17, Industrial Area, Fatuha, through its Director Amitesh Suman, S/O Shri Satyendra Kumar, R/O Ramachak, P.O.- Akauna, P.S.- Mashudhi, Distt.- Patna. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Central Area Electricity Board, Mangles Road, Patna. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Circle cum S.T.F. Head, R. Block, Patna. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Supply, Fatuha. 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Supply, Fatuha. . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the Resp. Board : Mr. Anand Kr. Ojha, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 2/ 29.09.2011 In the instant writ application, the petitioners pray for quashing the inspection report dated 23.07.2011 as well as punitive Bill to the tune of Rs.34,48,754/- raised by respondent no.2. It has been alleged that petitioner no.1 facilitated the process of drawing energy from his electric connection. It is relevant that petitioner no.1 is a consumer of the Board and petitioner no.2 is son of petitioner no.1. The petitioners submit that earlier also a similar allegation was made and punitive Bill was raised, which was quashed in appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. The petitioners submit that in stead of refunding the amount deposited provisionally, respondents by way of retaliation has again alleged that petitioner no.2 has drawn energy illegally 2 through electric connection of petitioner no.1. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the Board, submits that the Management of both the companies is in a common head in so much that the director of petitioner no.1 is father of director of petitioner no.2. The petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit stating that his objection has been dismissed without considering the points raised therein. It would appear from the final assessment order that the representative of the petitioner no.2 did not place his points before the assessing officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant one more chance to petitioner no.2 to place his case before the Assessing Officer. The petitioners would appear on 3rd October before the Assessing officer or any other date so fixed by him and put forth his case whereafter the assessing officer would proceed to dispose of the objection of the petitioner in accordance with law. The assessment order contained in Annexure-11 dated 02.09.2011 is kept in abeyance. The electric connection of petitioner no.1 be restored on deposit of adequate security. It will be open for the Board to take any other measure in accordance with law. This application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)