IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14964 of 2008 Arjun Kumar Jaisawal, S/O Jay Narayan Chaudhary, resident of Sindhuwa Toli Belwarganj, P.S. Alamganj, District- Patna Versus 1. The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bihar, Patna 2. General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, PESU, Patna Area Board 3. Electrical Superintending Engineer, PESU, East at Siwala Market, Patna 4. Electrical Executive Engineer, PESU, Gulzarbagh Division, Patna 5. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Meena Bazar, Sub-Division, PESU, Patna 6. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Revenue, Gulzarbagh Division, Patna 7. Junior Electrical Engineer, Meena Bazar, Patna ----------- 2. 27.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent- authorities of the Electricity Board to reinstate the electric connection of the petitioner and also for a direction to pay the penalty amount for not providing sanctioned load within the statutory time. The case of the petitioner is that he was given an electric connection with sanctioned load of 22 HP for running a plastic factory and subsequently he applied for enhancement of load by another 10 HP with respect to which enhanced amount of security deposit of Rs. 54,400/- was paid on 18.7.2008. The load was also enhanced by the authorities of the Electricity Board. Subsequently, a raid was conducted at his premises on 22.8.2008 in which it was found that he was availing the electricity after bypassing the electronic meter. F.I.R. was accordingly lodged for theft of electricity against him and he was taken into custody. It is stated in the FIR that the action of the petitioner has caused a loss of Rs. 14,50,000/- to the - 2 - Board and accordingly a provisional penal bill has been raised for the said amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire case is false and in support of the same he has also produced a photograph of the electronic meter and he also submits that the petitioner was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court by order dated 3.9.2008. Whether the petitioner was involved in theft of electricity or not is a matter to be decided by the court below on the basis of evidence produced before it. This Court in its writ jurisdiction is not in a position to come to any conclusion either way. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)