IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21899 of 2011 Md. Muzamil Alam, S/O Late Imtiyaj Alam, aged about 28 years, Resident of Village-Sultanganj, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Department of Energy, Bihar, Patna. 2. President, Bihar Electricity Board, Patna. 3. Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. Executive Engineer, PESU, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 5. Assistant Engineer, Gaighat Branch, PESU, Bihar State Electricity Board Patna. 6. Assistant Electric Engineer, Electric Supply Sub Division, Gaighat, Bihar State Electricity Board Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ---------------------------------- 3/ 23.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board. The petitioner submits that the respondent Board has raised the punitive Bill to the tune of Rs.4,26,000/-. He further submits that the respondents while levying the aforesaid amount have overlooked the provisions of Electricity Act and the Bye- laws. He further submits that he is facing hardship due to disconnection of his electric connection. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I observe as follows: The petitioner would deposit 40 % of the punitive Bill in three installments. The first installment of 20% would be paid within two weeks from today. The remaining 10 % would be paid within a further period of three weeks and the rest 10% would be deposited three weeks thereafter. On deposit of the first installment of 20 %, the electric line of the petitioner would be restored. The amount 2 which he has already deposited pursuant to order in anticipatory bail would be adjusted towards the punitive bill. The petitioner should also prefer an appeal against the final assessment order. This application stands disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)