IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.460 of 2011 2 19.7.2011 M/s Dina Metals Limited, A company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, having its registered office at Abdul Rehmanpur Road, Didarganj, P.O., P.S. and District Patna, through one of its Managers, Anand Kumar Sinha, son of Late S.N.Prasad, resident of Ram Krishna Nagar, P.O. New Jaganpura, P.S. Ram Krishna Nagar, District Patna (Bihar) …. Appellant VERSUS 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman officiating at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Director General of Vigilance, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 3. The General Manger cum Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, Mangles Road, Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer (Supply), Patna City 5.The Electrical Executive Engineer (Vigilance), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Vigilance, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna 7. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Katra, P.O. Patna City, P.S. Malsalami, District Patna 8. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (MRT II), Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (East), Patna …. Respondents -------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the learned Writ Court whereby the meter in question removed from the premises of the petitioner by the Vigilance Cell of the Electricity Board has been sent for retesting to National Physical - 2 - Laboratory, Delhi because this laboratory, as per order of the Writ Court, was choice of the petitioner. On going through the prayers made in the writ petition as well as in a subsequent interlocutory application, we find that the relief granted by the Writ Court meets almost all the prayers made on behalf of the writ petitioner except that there is no direction for testing of the meter by National Physical Laboratory, Delhi in presence of the petitioner’s representative. On perusal of Clause 8.14 relating to defective meters in Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 upon which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant we find that the said clause is for a situation where a consumer requests to test the meter. Clause 8.14 (a) (iii) is a sequence of action which is required to be taken on account of a consumer making request for testing the meter. Present case is not in relation to such a situation. In our view, the order of the Writ Court requires no interference. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2011 (1) PLJR 1064 - 3 - relates to validity of FIR or of criminal case lodged by Vigilance and not by the prescribed authority under the Electricity Act, 2003. The present case does not relate to any FIR or a criminal trial and hence, the aforesaid judgment is of no help to the appellant. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J. )