IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10122 of 2011 M/S Zee Saheb Cosmetic Zone & Anr Versus The Bihar State Electricity Board & ors. ---------------------------------- 5 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent Board. Petitioners prays that the respondent Electricity Board should issue a fresh energy bill and accept the same without insisting on delayed payment surcharge as has raised in bill dated 10.2.2009. The Board made an inspection of the petitioners’ premises on 9.2.2009 and came to the conclusion that they have indulged in theft of electricity by tampering the meter. An F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners. A provisional bill dated 10.2.2009 was also issued to the tune of Rs.7,08,145.00. The petitioners challenged the provisional assessment order dated 8.4.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.3309 of 2009. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 30.4.2009 directed the petitioners to appear before the Assessing Officer on 12th May,2009 and further directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3.5 lacs in five equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid on or before 8th May,2009 and the remaining on the 7th of the next four succeeding months The petitioners duly obeyed the order of the Court and deposited Rs.1.5 lac besides Rs.1,00,000/- which was earlier deposited. The petitioner approached the Assessing Officer in terms of order dated 30.4.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3309 of 2009 and Assessing Officer without considering 2 the points raised by the petitioners passed final assessment order of Rs.6,81,441/-. The petitioners challenged the final assessment order in the C.W.J.C.No.15996 of 2009 which was disposed of on 21.12.2009 with liberty to the petitioners to move in appeal. It was further observed that the petitioners would not require to pay anything for filing the appeal if they have paid more than 50% of the punitive bill. Learned Single Judge further directed the appellate authority to decide the issue on merit. Consequently, the petitioners filed Appeal No.1of 2010 before the appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are still charging delayed payment surcharge. The petitioners further submits that, in fact, monthly energy consumption would not be more than 2000 unit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellants authority disposed of the appeal bearing Appeal No.1/2010 on 2.7.2011. The appellate authority found that the assessments made are not correct and directed remissions accordingly. The respondent Board would act in terms of order of the appellate authority dated 2.7.2011 and would issue a fresh bill. The respondent Board would not charge delayed payment surcharge in the circumstances of the case. More so, as the Board has not challenged the order dated 2.7.2011 passed by the appellate authority in appeal No.1 of 2010. With the aforesaid direction this application is disposed of. AnilKrSinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)