IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5834 of 2010 Anish Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Mundrika Sharma R/O Moh Anishabad, P.S.Gardanibagh, Town & Distt-Patna Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna Through Its Chairman 2. The General Manager Cum Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking Mangles Road, Patna 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (West) Mangles Road, Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Elecric Supply Division Gardanibagh, Patna 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division Gardanibagh, Patna ----------------------- 02/ 08.09.2011 Heard Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The writ petition was filed challenging the demand raised by the respondent-Board for an amount of Rs. 1,74,000/- pursuant to an inspection carried out on 19.2.2010. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner is a consumer of the respondent-Board and engaged in the business of providing service to two wheelers of Bajaj Auto, running in the name and style of M/s Kamakhya Agency at Gardanibagh, Patna. The petitioner has been provided with a sanctioned load of 5 K. W. under commercial category. An inspection was carried out at the premise of the petitioner on 19.2.2010 by the team of Special Task Force. Alleging certain irregularities in the meter, an F.I.R. was instituted under the provision of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2 2003 giving rise to Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 29 of 2010. In the inspection report itself a statement has been made regarding a loss suffered by the respondent-Board to the extent of Rs. 1,74,000/- by reason of improper use of electricity by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that no demand as such was raised as regarding quantification nor any assessment was carried out. As an F.I.R. had already been instituted, the petitioner at the stage of consideration of his bail application by the court below, without admitting as to the allegations set out in the F.I.R. and without prejudice to his rights and contentions to challenge the same, agreed to deposit the amount mentioned in the F.I.R. It is thereafter that the present writ petition came to be filed before this Court seeking quashing the quantification of Rs. 1,74,000/- by the respondent-Board in absence of any assessment proceeding and in absence of any demand. That the quantification is a part of the F.I.R. and which is subject matter of a proceeding pending before the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Act of 2003 this Court would not express any opinion thereon save and except that the deposit so made by the petitioner would be governed by the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the criminal court and/or any other proceedings to be undertaken by the petitioner questioning the very institution of the F.I.R. During the pendency of the proceeding an Interlocutory Application has been filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the prayer portion of the writ petition by questioning 3 the very inspection done by the members of the Special Task Force on 19.2.2010 in the light of the provision of Section 135(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 11(2) and (3) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is only an officer authorized under the said provision who is authorized to make any inspection and none other. Learned counsel by relying upon a notification dated 7.8.2008 published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) on 24.8.2009, submits that earlier, it were only Assistant Electrical Engineers of Electric Supply Sub-Division of the Bihar State Electricity Board who were authorized to make any inspection under Section 135(2) of the Act, 2003 and which category was subsequently expanded by a subsequent notification dated 19.8.2011 published on 25.8.2011, whereby the members of the Special Task Force were also authorized to carry out inspection in addition to the Assistant Electrical Engineers authorized under the notification dated 7.8.2008. Learned counsel thus seeks to contend that as the members of Special Task Force themselves were not authorized to carry out the inspection as on 19.2.2010 and which authorization was vested in them only subsequent to the publication of the notification dated 19.8.2011 in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) on 25.8.2011, the inspection carried out by the Special Task Force was wholly without jurisdiction and the consequences thereon unsustainable in law. Although, this Court, prima facie, does find substance 4 in the contention of the learned counsel but considering the nature of relief prayed in the writ petition and the fact that allowing the relief prayed in the Interlocutory Application would result in alteration in the very nature of the proceedings, this Court would not delve into the matter. The petitioner, if so advised, may assail the action of the respondent authorities and question the inspection dated 19.2.2010 which is the basis for the F.I.R., by filing an appropriate application before an appropriate forum. This Court thus without delving into the said issue, disposes of the writ petition with the liberty aforesaid. Let the notification produced by learned counsel be kept on the record of the proceedings. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)