- (1.) THE petitioner has challenged energy bill issued for the month of November, 2001 and onwards against Consumer No. SRC -52/SKL -210 on the ground that the bills are arbitrarily having made without assessing the valid connected load.
(2.) ACCORDING to respondents an inspection was made by the Additional Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply 3ub -Division (Urban), Seraikella in presence of a representative of petitioner on 25th September, 2001. The consumer -petitioner was found consuming electrical energy by way of illegal means, an unauthorised extension of his connected load for 4 KW taken in place of 1 KW sanctioned load. The respondents have every right to detect the unauthorised and illegal extension of connected load pilferage of electricity and to serve bill accordingly as per clause 16.9(8) III of 1993 tariff. The petitioner has disputed the fact that an inspection was made on 25th September, 2001 in presence of any representative of petitioner. On the other hand it has been alleged that no show cause notice was given to him before serving any bill under clause 16.9(8) of the tariff. 1999(3) PLJR 481, this Court held that a show cause notice is necessary before holding that a consumer is guilty of theft or is drawing electricity unauthorisedly. 5. In the aforesaid background, as no show cause notice was issued on petitioner before raising bill under clause 16.9 of the tariff. The case is remitted to J.S.E.B. with direction to give a show cause notice to petitioner and to pass a speaking order assigning reasons, taking into consideration reply, if any, filed by petitioner within four months. 6. If the petitioner in the meantime deposits 50% of the arrears, the respondents will restore the electrical connection subject to decision as may be taken. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.;