IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.508 of 2009 Kumar Pankaj, son of Shri Braj Bhushan Prasad, resident of Sheochakmaal, Mahendiganj, P.S. Bye-pass, Patna City, District- Patna ……………. Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhavan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (East), Shivalaya Market, Ashok Rajpath, Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Guljarbagh, Electric Supply Division, Guljarbagh, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Patna 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Meena Bazar, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (East), Patna 6. The Junior Electrical Engineer, Meena Bazar, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (East), Patna ………….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the Board:- Mr. Prakash Verma,Advocate. ----------- 3. 26.2.2009 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The case of the petitioner is that on the same day, i.e., 3.12.2008 two inspection reports were prepared by the same team of officials of the Board headed by the Electrical Executive Engineer; in the first of which it was found that the total connected load was 144 HP and it was remarked that line was disconnected, service wire and meter were removed as the load was found excess than the sanctioned load; in the second report of the same date apart from the finding regarding connected load of 144 HP, it was remarked that there was cutting in service wire before meter for bypassing. Thereafter an FIR was lodged and a penal bill dated 3.12.2008 for Rs. 61,21,535/- was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 petitioner was having a sanctioned load of 20 HP and prior to the raid he had applied for extension from 20 HP to 50 HP which was sanctioned by order dated 18.6.2008 (Annexure-2) and the petitioner was directed to deposit security amount at Rs.1700 per H.P, i.e., Rs. 85,000/-. It is submitted that accordingly the petitioner deposited on 17.11.2008 (Annexure-3) an amount of Rs. 63,000/- being the difference amount of security deposit, since Rs. 22,000/- had earlier been deposited by the petitioner for the sanction of 20 HP load. It is submitted that the authorities have committed error in treating the petitioner’s sanctioned load as 20 HP instead of 50 HP while raising the penal bill. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the first inspection report which speaks of disconnection of line and removal of service wire and meter does not even whisper of any bypassing of the meter and the same has been deliberately introduced in the second inspection report for the purpose of involving the petitioner in a criminal case. It is lastly contended that since the deposit for excess load was made on 17.11.2008 therefore, the authorities, even if they found any excess load, which finding he also disputes, could only have charged for the period after the deposit had been made and agreement submitted by the petitioner in the proper format before the authorities of the Board, i.e., for a period of 20 days and not for a period of one year as has been done. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Electricity 3 Board, the stand has been taken that the petitioner was not only having connected load of 144 HP, much more than the sanctioned load but he has also bypassed the electrical meter. It is admitted that the application for enhancement had been granted by order dated 18.6.2008. It is evident from the above admitted facts that firstly there is no whisper about bypassing of meter in the first inspection report which speaks about the removal of meter, service wire and also excess connected load. Secondly, it is also admitted that sanction of extension of load was accorded on 18.6.2008 which could have been done only after due inspection of the premises of the petitioner and thus there appears to be force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the penal bill could not have been raised for any period prior to the previous inspection, although learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it could not have been done for before the period when the security amount had been deposited. However, since an FIR has been lodged, such issues of facts are matters to be taken into consideration by the criminal Court which also has powers under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to fix the civil liability in such cases. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with a direction that if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs. 6 lacs in three equal instalments, the first to be paid on or before 10th March, 2009 and the remaining two on or before 10th April, 2009 and 10th May, 2009 and a receipt showing payment of the first instalment is 4 produced before the authorities of the Electricity Board along with an application for reduction of the load, the authorities of the Board shall restore the electric connection of the petitioner within 48 hours of the same and shall complete the formalities of reducing the load of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Supply Code within a further period of two weeks. Any further payment under the punitive bill dated 3.12.2008 shall abide by the decision of the criminal Court. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)