IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14590 of 2009 1. M/S NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE DURGA COLD STORAGE CAMPUS, NASIRIGANJ, DIGHA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, SRI RAMESH KUMAR, S/O SRI BASANT LAL, R/O MUHALLA- NASIRIGANJ, P.S.- DANAPUR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER PESU AREA, MANGLES ROAD, PATNA 4. ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ELECTRIC SUPPLY CIRCLE, PESU (WEST), PATNA 5. ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, DANAPUR 6. ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER-CUM-ASSESSING OFFICER ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION, DIGHA, PATNA ----------- 3. 07.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The earlier order dated 23.11.2009 notices the facts of the case with regard to allegation of suspected theft of electricity and a provisional bill raised thereunder of approximately Rs. 11 lakhs under Section 135 (1)(A) of the Electricity Act. The order then goes on to notice that meter tampering and seal tampering were two different things. Merely because the seal of the meter may have been tampered did not lead to a presumption of tampering with the meter, which had to be established by the Board otherwise. It was also noticed that the meter installed in the premises was electronic having a 2 memory chip maintaining records of consumption of electricity. If scientific evidence was available, institution of prosecution and imposition of liabilities on conjectures and surmises was unwarranted. Directions were given to proceed on basis of MRI report to be obtained from the memory chip and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. The provisional bill was directed to be enforced and supplies were directed not to be resumed subject to payment of current charges. On 23.11.2009 itself the Board had filed a counter affidavit where none of the aforesaid issues were dealt with. Thereafter the Board has chosen not to file any counter affidavit with regard to compliance of the aforesaid order. Counsel for the Board fairly submits that the order dated 23.11.2009 has not been questioned by the Board before any superior forum. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order issued by the Chief Engineer, Commercial of the Bihar State Electricity Board dated 18.2.2010 of the manner in which the Board had directed its officers to download information from the computer chip installed in electronic meters, analyze the downloaded data and thereafter proceed to 3 determine matters in accordance with law. Counsel for the Board submits that he has no further instruction on this aspect of the matter. He further submits that in pursuance of an F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner, the meter in question is with the Police. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains adequate provisions should the Board wish to act in accordance with its own interests. The respondent Board, if it is aggrieved by any order of the Court including an interim order certainly has remedies in accordance with law. But if it does not question the order or the interim order, it cannot act at its whims and fancies to ignore the Court’s order when it finds them unsuited for its purpose. Court orders are required to be complied unless and until they are varied, set aside and/ or modified as the case may be. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished by the Board why it has not complied with the direction of the Court dated 23.11.2009. In fact, the conduct of the Board is outright contemptuous. The Court however refrains from proceeding in the contempt jurisdiction in the fond hope that wisdom shall dawn and the Board shall wake up to its duties in law. The conduct of the Board virtually amount to challenging 4 its own administrative direction dated 18.2.2010 which it cannot do. Unless and until the Board follows the aforesaid procedure to determine liability in accordance with law, it is restrained from recovering any amount of punitive charges raised against the petitioner by order dated 22.10.2009 at Annexure-3. In the nature of the controversy where the petitioner denies the allegations, the Court considers it only proper to direct that downloading and analysis of the date from the computer chip in the meter stated to have been installed in the premises of the petitioner shall be done in his presence when objection if any on his part shall be duly considered also. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)