IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1700 of 2010 1. GANESH KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SITA RAM SINGH R/O MOHALLA- KADAMKUAN, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, TOWN & DISTT.- PATNA 2. DR. SAILESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI GANESH KUMAR SINGH R/O MOHALLA- KADAMKUAN, P.S.- KADAMKUAN, TOWN & DISTT.- PATNA VERSUS 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER-CUM-GENERAL MANAGER, PATNA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING (PESU), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, PATNA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY UNDERTAKING (PESU) WEST CIRCLE, PATNA 4. THE FINANCIAL CONTROLLER (REVENUE), BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 5. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (TECHNICAL) PESU, PATNA 6. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, DAK BUNGLOW, PESU, PATNA 7. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION, KADAMKUAN, PESU, PATNA 8. THE JUNIOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION, KADAMKUAN, PESU, PATNA ----------- Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Mohan. Counsel for the Board : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha. ------------ 02 16.02.2010 The two petitioners are father and son and they had two connections for supply of electricity. An inspection was conducted and allegedly on ground of theft a provisional punitive bill was served. They filed their objections and then preferred a writ petition before this Court. In the writ proceedings, this Court directed the petitioners to deposit certain amount of money upon which their connections would be restored. The Court further directed that final assessment be made which would be subject to challenge in accordance with law. Final assessment having been made in terms of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The petitioners filed appeal, as contemplated under Section 127, which has not been entertained, as in view of the Appellate Authority petitioners - 2 - had deposited the 50% of the finally assessed amount. Petitioners submit that the final assessment calculation on the face of it is wrong apart from all other reasons that the rebate that is given for the past. Firstly, it is pointed out that while giving rebate for 12 months consumption what has to be reduced is the number of units built from the number of units chargeable punitively. It is submitted that if that is done the amount would substantially reduced. It is then submitted that there being allegation of seal tampering etc. but no allegation on previous day of earlier days of meter reading having found that meter seals were tampered or any other artificial means used or seized the billing could not be for entire 12 months period. Be that as it may, on petitioners making up the deposit of the 50% of the requirement, as envisaged under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, the Appellate Authority would entertain the appeal and after hearing the parties decide the matter in accordance with law. As petitioners’ line has been restored the same abide by final orders of the Appellate Authority, which should be passed within 3 months of the appeal being refilled. In that view of the matter, the earlier order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal for non-deposit of 50% of the balance punitive bill is, thus, set aside. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)