IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1228 of 2010 1. GOVIND PRASAD S/O SRI SITA RAM PRASAD R/O VILL NEORA, P.S.BIHTA,DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD ,PATNA 2. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PESU,PATNA 3. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PESU PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER , ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION BIHTA,BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA ----------- 2 02.02.2010 The petitioner has a rice mill and was supplied by the Bihar State Electricity Board electricity through LTIS-II service connection. On 09.10.2009, the petitioner informed the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Subdivision, Bihta that the cable supplying energy through the metre has burnt because of which mill is closed. Necessary action should be taken. On the said very application, on different levels, on the same day, different notings are there of the Junior Engineer and other Engineers which clearly point to the fact that on inspection also, it was found that the cable had burnt because of which there was no supply of electricity to the mill. It was also noted that to repair and replace the cables, the meter seals would have to be broken. Petitioner asserts that thereafter on 15.10.2009, officials of BSEB came and as the cable had burnt, they cut the cable and as the mill was not functional for almost seven days, gave direct connection being unable to reconnect it through the meter but having done so, they demanded illegal gratification. Petitioner, being 2 apprehensive, immediately lodged a station diary entry with the Bihta Police Station clearly pointing these facts which was recorded as Station Diary Entry No 356 of 2009 dated 16.10.2009. On 16.10.2009, a first information report is lodged by the same inspecting officer of BSEB with the police alleging that there was a surprise inspection conducted at the mill premises on 16.10.2009 in the afternoon and it was found that the petitioner had cut the cables and bypassed the meter and was running the industry direct. It was further alleged that meter seals were also found tampered and, as such, the case was being instituted in terms of Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act and registered as Bihta Police Station Case No 274 of 2009 dated 16.10.2009. Immediately thereafter, petitioner has been served with a provisional assessment bill of about Rs 34 lakhs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts, as stated above, would show that on 09.10.2009, the authorities of the Board themselves found that the cable had burnt and the supply was stopped. It noted replacement by breaking the meter seals. Petitioner then alleges that as the mill was closed, on 15.10.2009, the authorities themselves connected the mill premises directly after cutting the cables (not bypassing the cable or the meter). This can never be done by a consumer even if he has to commit theft. When illegal gratification was not paid, this false case has been instituted. A perusal of the first information report also shows that it is the same group of people who first on 09.10.2009 inspected the premises and then come on 15.10.2009 3 to repair and restore supply and then they lodged the first information report but in the first information report, they are totally silent about these recent important facts and events and paint a picture as if petitioner was caught stealing electricity in a surprise inspection. These facts, in my view, are serious issues but as there is trial to be conducted in terms of Section 156 of the Act, I will leave it open to the Court to draw its inference. The provisional bill on the face of it appears to be wrong for the simple reason that on 09.10.2009, an inspection was conducted and reports are, as above discussed. Thus, prior to that, there is no material to show that there was any theft of electricity. Thus, at best for the purposes of relief at this stage and subject to final orders that may be passed in terms of Section 156 of the Act from the appellate remedy available under Section 127, I direct the petitioner to make a representation against the provisional assessment which would be considered on its own merit keeping in mind that the period of unauthorised user of electricity (theft) could at best be in the facts and circumstances of this case the period after 09.10.2009 upto 16.10.2009 only which amount so determined would be paid by the petitioner subject to his appellate remedy under Section 127 and the ultimate quantification under Section 156. Till such time, on petitioner’s depositing Rs 1 lakh the electric line with correct wiring and meter be restored immediately not later than one week of payment of the said amount. 4 With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)