IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3757 of 2010 1. Md. Sakil Ahmad S/O Afzalul Rahman Khan R/O Banwari Tola, Sadar Gali, P.S.- Khajekalan, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Baily Road, Patna Through its Chairman 2. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Under Taking, Mangles Road, Patna 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Undertaking (East), Shivalaya Market, Ashok Rajpath, Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Supply, Patna City, Patna 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Supply, Chowk Patna city, Patna ----------- 5 26.07.2011 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Karn, Learned Junior Counsel to Mr. A.K. Ojha, counsel representing the Bihar State Electricity Board. The writ petition has been filed seeking restoration of the electricity connection of the petitioner which had been disconnected by reason of non payment of the dues for consumption of the electrical energy. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner was a consumer with the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board) bearing Consumer No.42730530 for Low Tension Category having a sanctioned load of 1 H.P. The line of the petitioner was disconnected due to non- 2 payment of the electricity dues amounting to Rs.25,631/-. A raid was made by the authorities of the respondent Board along with the police officials on the premise of the petitioner on 17.2.2009 when it came to notice that the petitioner despite disconnection of his line, was drawing electricity unauthorisedly by hanging a “toka” and in this connection an F.I.R. was instituted against the petitioner giving rise to Khajekalan P.S.Case No.44 of 2009 under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and it is the subject matter of consideration by the Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Act. Even before any provisional assessment could be made under section 126 of the Act, the punitive bill was issued to the petitioner and which has been brought on record vide Annexure-2 dated 19.2.2009 estimating a loss of Rs.90,400/- together with pending dues amount of Rs.25,631- total being Rs.1,16,031/-. It is not in dispute that the dues of Rs.25,631/ towards consumption of the electrical energy has since been deposited vide receipts dated 30.4.2009 placed at Annexures-5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 3 that the punitive bill, in the absence of any assessment under section 126 of the Act, would not be sustainable. On query, learned counsel for the Board accepts the position that no assessment order has yet been passed in the case of the petitioner before raising the punitive bill for the loss of Rs.90,400/-. Having regard to the circumstances, the action of the respondent Board in raising the punitive bill without making any assessment under section 126 of the Act is without sanction of law and can not be sustained and as a consequence whereof, the punitive bill for the loss of Rs.90,400/- is quashed and set aside. As the pending dues have already been deposited by the petitioner, there is no reason for the Board in not restoring the electrical connection of the petitioner. The pendency of the criminal case before the Special Court for determination of the civil liability, if any, can not be a ground for denial of supply of energy to the petitioner. For the reasons aforesaid, this court directs the respondent Board to restore the electrical connection of the petitioner subject to deposit of an amount of Rs.25000/- (Twentyfive thousand) only 4 and which shall be subject to the final outcome of the assessment proceedings, if any, to be drawn by the Board under section 126 of the Act. Needless to add that the electrical connection of the petitioner would be restored within 72 hours of the deposit of the aforesaid amount. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)