Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing the Annexure -7 dated 23.06.2009, which is an electricity bill raised by respondents on the basis of provisional assessment made by it. It appears that petitioner is a Company, registered under the Companies Act and engaged in a business of Roller Flour Mill at Sunder Nagar, District - Singhbhum (East). For the said business, petitioner took electric connection having sanctioned load of 250 KVA, later on said sanctioned load was enhanced from time to time. It appears that on 22.06.2009 officers of the respondents -Company conducted an inspection in the factory premises of the petitioner and found that the seal of the meter was tampered, locking system of Glass Box of Metering Unit changed with fibre body, locking system disturbed by welding. Accordingly, the Inspecting Team concluded that petitioner did so with a view to reduce measurement of actual consumption of electricity. Accordingly, the Inspecting Team prima facie comes to the conclusion that the case of petitioner would be within the purview of section 135 of the Electricity Act. Thereafter, the Inspecting Team seized the Meter and other equipments by -preparing a seizure list. Thereafter, they disconnected the electric supply of the petitioner. It appears that thereafter, an F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner vide Pursudih (Sunder Nagar) P.S. Case No. 118 of 2009 dated 22.06.2009. It appears that thereafter, the Authorised Officer (Assessing Officer) made an assessment and vide Annexure -7 asked the petitioner to pay Rs. 85 lacs towards electric energy consumed by it during the theft period. Against that order petitioner filed present writ application.
(2.) THIS Court vide order dated 05.08.2009 had directed the then Electricity Board to restore the electric supply in the premises of petitioner, on the condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10 lacs out of provisional assessment demand of Rs. 85 lacs. It is stated at Bar that petitioner already deposited aforesaid Rs. 10 lacs, thereafter, electric supply of the petitioner's factory had been resumed. It appears that thereafter. Assessing Officer made final assessment and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 58,10,352/ - towards the electric consumption made by it during the theft period. This, final assessment has been challenged by the petitioner by filing Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 3103/09. The aforesaid I.A. has not been moved and uptill now no order has been passed on it. Thereafter, another I.A. filed being I.A. No. 1385/2010 in which prayer has been made for quashing the final assessment orders i.e. Annexures -11 and 11/1. This I.A. has also not moved and no order passed in it. Shri Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the assessment, orders preliminary assessment order as well as the final assessment order, the respondents have not assigned any reason in terms of regulation framed by Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, He further submitted that the Assessing Officer had not mentioned any reason in both the assessment orders. Shri Jerath further submitted that as per Regulation 15.8 Clause (vii), no case of theft could be booked only because seal of the meter is missing or tampered or breakage of glass window, unless it is corroborated by consumption pattern of consumer and such other evidence, as may be available. It is submitted that since in the F.I.R. as well as in the assessment orders, consumption pattern of the consumer had not been mentioned by the Authorised Officer, therefore, it can be safely said that this is not a case of theft. Hence, assessment made by the Authorised Officer is illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned assessment orders both provisional as well as final and the bills raised on the basis of said assessment orders, cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that as per Clause 15.5 of the Regulation framed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission, procedure for assessment laid down under section 126 of the Electricity Act will be applicable in the case of assessment made under section 135 of the Electricity Act. It is submitted that in the present case procedure laid down under section 126 of the Electricity Act has not been followed, and, therefore, both the assessment orders and the bills raised on the basis of said orders are illegal and liable to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the Electric Company submitted that in the F.I.R. and inspection note the Authorised Officer has categorically stated that on inspection, it was found that seal of L.V. Box of metering Unit has been tampered, locking system of L.V. Box of Metering Unit found tampered and glass of L.V. Box found changed with fibre body. It was also found that locking system was completely disturbed by welding. The Assessing Officer concluded that petitioner had done so with a view to reducing the measurement of actual consumption on electric energy. Accordingly, Sri Ajit Kumar submitted that aforesaid conduct of petitioner comes within the four corners of definition of theft as defined under section 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003. He further submitted that though in the assessment order consumption pattern has not been mentioned, but this is a question of fact, which the Electric Company can brought on record by way of evidence before the Special Judge under section 154 of the Electricity Act, as and when petitioner raised any objection regarding the said assessment. He further submitted that as per Section 135(1A), the Authorised Officer has to mention only that he detected a theft of electricity committed by the consumer. He further submits that under section 135(1A) 4th proviso the Assessing Officer is required to make assessment as per formula mentioned under section 153 of the Electricity Regulation. Learned counsel for the Electric Company heavily relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company V. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, reported in : 2013 (3) JBCJ -356.;