- (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for direction on the respondents to restore electrical connection of the petitioner which has been illegally disconnected on 1.2.2012 on the allegation of unauthorised use of electricity. The petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondents to disclose the mode and method of calculation for arriving at the provisional assessment, as the calculation is contrary to the method prescribed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission. It has been stated that the petitioner had taken electrical connection from the Board for a sanctioned load of 90 H.P. under LTIS category. There was no allegation of any anomaly at any point of time earlier. Subsequently, load of the petitioner was enhanced from 90 H.P. to 105 H.P. and the load from 105 H.P. to 210 KVA was sanctioned by letter No. 2288 dated 7.9.2011. For the purpose of enhancement of load from LTIS to HTIS category the petitioner has taken necessary steps and has purchased the transformer of 315 KVA. Since the enhancement of load was allowed and necessary steps were to be taken, for the last ten days there were no manufacturing activities in the factory premises. In the meanwhile, on 31.1.2012 an inspection was made by the respondents in the factory premises of the petitioner in late evening at 9.45 P.M. The inspection team allegedly found unauthorised use of electricity by the petitioner. An F.l.R. was lodged by the respondents which was registered under Sections.135, 138 and 139 of the Electricity Act. The electricity line was also disconnected. The petitioner aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the Board filed this application. It is relevant to mention that in the F.l.R. allegation was made of causing loss to the Board of Rs. 10,39,387/-.
(2.) During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner was served with a provisional assessment purported to be made under Section 126(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as the Electricity Act) in which the provisional assessment of the loss has been shown as Rs. 51,06,041/-. It has been submitted that on the one hand in the F.I.R. loss caused to the Electricity Board is alleged to be about Rs. 10 lacs, the same has been assessed at more than 51 lacs in the provisional assessment.
(3.) Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing oh behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegation made against the petitioner is wholly false and baseless. The respondents have arbitrarily disconnected the electrical line of the petitioner on frivolous grounds. The assessment of the alleged loss has been made on the basis of HTIS line, whereas the petitioner is the LTIS consumer. He further submitted that the inspection was made in the late evening in absence of the petitioner. In the F.I.R. loss caused to the respondents was said to be about Rs. 10 lacs, whereas the amount of loss has been assessed at Rs. 51 lacs and odd in the provisional assessment. There is no consistency in the amount and claim of the respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged inspection, lodging of F.I.R. and making provisional assessment by the respondents are malicious, arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner's line has been illegally disconnected resulting into closure of the petitioner's factory and causing enormous loss and injury to the petitioner.;