IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5835 of 2010 1. KALAWATI DEVI W/O SRI RAMDEO SAH R/O MOH NAKHAS MACHHUA TOLI, P.S.MALSALAMI, PATNA CITY, DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN , BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD null PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER ELECTRICT SUPPLY DIVISION PATNA CITY, PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING MAROOFGANJ, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION , PATNA CITY, PATNA 5. THE EXECUTIVE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING , ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION PATNA CITY, PATNA ----------- 3. 11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner is stated to be a D.S.-II consumer with a sanctioned 2 K.W. load. She is aggrieved by a bill dated 4.8.2009 raising demand of Rs. 1,92,000/- on allegation of having an unauthorized 4 K.W. load revealed on an inspection dated 23.6.2009. Malsalami P.S. Case No. 97 of 2009 was lodged the same day under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The petitioner is stated to have paid the amount in question in installment as determined during the stage of grant of Anticipatory bail. The petitioner has not disclosed on what date the original electricity connection was obtained and whether any other bills had been raised upon her prior to the disputed bill. That may have helped in resolving the controversy whether the 2 petitioner had an electric meter installed in the premises or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was no connected load beyond 2 K.W. The meter was functioning. The inspection report does not mention any details on what basis 4 K.W. load was assessed. There was no occasion for her to by-pass the meter and she could not have two connections one through the meter and one directly without the meter. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Board. The counter affidavits do not and cannot improve upon the inspection report dated 23.6.2009, which does not mention any details in column of the report of the manner in which a 4 K.W. load was assessed in place of sanctioned 2 K.W. load. The Court in this writ petition therefore finds it difficult to uphold any demand upon the petitioner on the basis of 4 K.W. sanctioned load. The petitioner alleges that she had a functioning meter. She does not disclose the meter number to the Court. The Electricity Board states in the inspection report that the meter was by- passed but leaves the column of the meter number and the condition of the meter blank by putting a cross. The Court is not satisfied from the pleadings in the supplementary counter affidavit at Paragraph-5 3 seeking to justify that there was a meter installed in the premises bearing No. 2005862. Assuming what the Board contends be correct, the counter affidavit should then have made a statement as to what was the condition of the meter, whether it was running or it not. This assumes importance in view of the submission of the petitioner that since she had a meter connection running, there was no occasion for her to tap electricity illegally. The fact that the petitioner may have deposited a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- in pursuance of a conditional order granting her anticipatory bail does not preclude her from challenging the correctness of the same as contended on behalf of the Board. The willingness to pay the amount was obviously under protest in view of the threat looming large of arrest as an alternative. The amount therefore shall now have to be appropriately adjusted/refunded as the case may be after an exercise in the manner as directed hereinafter is completed. The petitioner shall appear before the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Maroofganj, Patna City. The liability of the petitioner for a 4 K.W. load shall be demonstrated to her from the inspection report dated 23.6.2009 and no other material. If he is unable to do 4 so, quite obviously, the assessment has to be done on the basis of a 2 K.W. load. In that event, the Assistant Engineer shall be required to decide the issue whether there was a electric meter installed in the premises, whether it was functioning and if so why the inspection report was silent on these aspects and then proceed to determine the liabilities of the petitioner on basis of 2 K.W. load only. If no meter was existed in the premises, the assessment shall have to be done in accordance with law with regard to the permissible past period stipulated for average billing. If in this manner the petitioner is held entitled to payment of any lesser amount, the Board shall be obliged to adjust the same against the further bills of the petitioner. Let this order be complied with within a maximum period of two months. Nothing stated in this order shall have any bearing on the criminal case which shall have to be proved and contested on its own merits in accordance with the principle governing criminal law. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)