IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15137 of 2009 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI DEVENDRA PRASAD SHARMA R/O MOH-KASIM BAZAR, P.S- KASIM BAZAR, DISTT- MUNGER Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE CHIEF ENGINER (E.A), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BAORD, PATNA 3. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CIRCLE, MUNGER 4. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DIVISION, MUNGER 5. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ELECTIRCITY SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION, MUNGER For the petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate. ----------- 7. 26-08-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board and its authorities. 2 This writ petition is directed against order dated 4.03.2009(Annexure-3) by which Electrical Executive Engineer (Respondent no. 4) Electricity Supply Division, Munger has issued demand of Rs. 8,57,363/- from the petitioner on the basis of inspection/load verification report dated 25-02-2009 (Annexure-2) made by the Special Task Force constituted vide order dated 20-11-2007 by the Board. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such matter, the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 is very clear as Clause 11.1 thereof specifically provides that inspection has to be done whereafter provisional assessment and notice is sent to the consumers as per Sub Clause (a) & (b) to the said clause. In the instant case, there is nothing to 2 show that either any provisional assessment or any notice was sent to the petitioner. 4 The said Clause 11.1 further provides in Sub Clause (c) that after notice the date of hearing has to be fixed whereafter final assessment has to be made and necessary order in that regard has to be passed and if the customer is aggrieved, he can file an appeal under Sub Clause (d) of the said Clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any hearing nor any final assessment has been made and hence, the petitioner is also deprived by filing any statutory appeal as required by law. 5 From a bare reading of the said provisions, it is quite apparent that it was mandatory upon the authority concerned to follow the said provisions and adopt the procedures as prescribed in the aforesaid clause 11.1 of the Code, but in the instant case no such step has been taken by the authorities concerned and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relying upon paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of their counter affidavit stated that the provisional statement was made under Clause 11.1 (b) of the Code, whereafter letter dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure-3) was sent by Respondent no. 4 to the petitioner and vide letter dated 11.07.2009 the Assessment Officer asked the petitioner that if he has any dissatisfaction he may file objection by 15.07.2009 otherwise the demand raised will be treated as final assessment. It is 3 also stated that the petitioner filed an objection on 15.07.2009 and date of hearing was fixed on 23.07.2009 when the petitioner appeared and placed his case whereafter the matter was adjourned on 18.08.2009 on which date the petitioner did not appear and thereafter another date was fixed, but the petitioner did not turn up and the instant writ petition has been filed. 7 From perusal of letter of the authorities dated 11.07.2009 (Annexure-B) it is apparent that objection was invited from the petitioner to which the petitioner filed his reply on 15.07.2009(Annexure-C), but much prior to the aforesaid letter, the electricity of the petitioner had been disconnected. It is also apparent that hearing of the matter under Clause 11.1 (c) has not yet been concluded and hence no final assessment has been made. In the said circumstances, provisional assessment not having been supplied to the petitioner, any order passed in accordance with the said assessment including order dated 04.03.2009(Annexure-3) by the Electrical Executive Engineer (Respondent no. 4) demanding Rs. 8,57,363/- from the petitioner, cannot be legally held to be legal. 8 In the said circumstances, the said impugned order dated 04-03-2009 (Annexure-3) is hereby quashed and the authority concerned is directed to proceed with the hearing of the matter under Clause 11.1(c) of the Code expeditiously in which the petitioner shall appear within 15 days and co-operate for early disposal of the matter. 4 However, if any order is passed against the petitioner, the petitioner will have the liberty to file an appeal in accordance with Clause 11.1(d) of the Code. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)