IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10451 of 2008 GOLCHHA FLOUR MILLS (P) LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED A OFFICE AT FORBESGANJ THROUGH MOOLCHAND GOLCHHA, SON OF LATE GOBARDHAN DAS GOLCHHA, ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF GOLCHHA FLOUR MILL (P) LTD, FORBESGANJ, RESIDENT OF ARUN GOLCHHA PATH, WARD NO.5, P.O. + P.S. FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. FINANCIAL CONTROLLER (REVENUE), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAVAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 03.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’). 2. Petitioner-Company is a high tension consumer of the Board. It is aggrieved by the First Information Report lodged by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Forbesganj dated 20.6.2008, Annexure-1, whereunder power theft has been alleged against the concern on the basis of which two punitive bill dated 21, 25.6.2008, Annexures- 2 and 3 has also been raised against the company. This Court having considered the 2 matter passed interim order dated 25.8.2008 directing the authorities of the Board to restore the electrical connection of the petitioner on the date of inspection as petitioner was found exceeding the contracted demand of 425 KVA to the extent of 569 KVA with further observation not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for non payment of the two punitive bill. 3. By filing counter affidavit and placing on record Deta Down Loaded from Meter Reading Instrument as also the production chart of the petitioner concern, counsel for the Board submitted that petitioner is not only exceeding the contracted load but has also indulged in power theft by by-passing the meter installed and in view of the allegations set out in the F.I.R. duly corroborated from the production chart, the concern be directed to pay the 50% amount of the punitive bill. 4. Counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder disputed the averments made in the counter affidavit as also the contents of the production chart and submitted that the case of the Board that petitioner indulged in power theft is not to be relied upon in view of the fact that power itself was not supplied from the Grid which can be verified 3 by obtaining report from the Grid and comparing the Grid report same with the Deta Down Loaded from the Meter Reading Instrument. It is also submitted that in fairness the authorities of the Board should have annexed the Grid report with the counter affidavit. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to appear before the Assessment Officer who should seek report from the concerned Grid about the duration of the power supplied to the petitioner-unit and if the Grid report does not corroborate the Deta Down Loaded from the Meter Reading Instrument the amount of the punitive bill should be reduced to the extent it is not corroborated by the Grid report and modified bill be issued with direction to the petitioner to pay 50% of the reduced/modified bill amount within four weeks from the date of issue of the modified bill by the Assessment Officer. In case of non- payment of the amount the authorities will be at liberty to disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner. Having passed the interim order the Assessment Officer will grant further opportunity to the petitioner to file objection to his provisional assessment order and 4 thereafter pass final order within two months from the date of receipt of the objection. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Ibrar/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)