S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE writ application has been preferred by the petitioner M/s. Automobile Ancillary Industries, Jamshedpur (Singhbhum East) with two prayer i.e. (i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to restore the electric line in the petitioner factory, having connection No. ADLT -3, AV 162, which was disconnected on 20th January, 2000 pursuant to an FIR, lodged by 4th respondent, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Adityapur, Jamshedpur and (ii) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to replace the metering box in which the meter as well as CT have been installed in respect to which the petitioner has given several reminders. Further prayer is to direct the respondents not to raise any bill under clause 16.9 of the Electricity Tariff, 1993.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner, a Small Scale Industry, is a Low Tension Industrial Service Consumer, which obtained contract demand of 79 HP from the then Bihar State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand State Electricity Board -hereinafter to be referred as 'JSEB '). Subsequently, a new electronic, meter was installed in the factory premises of the petitioner on 7th December, 1998 in a wooden box. On the other side of box CTPI Unit was installed. A number of time, officers of the respondent -Board made inspection and took reading from time to time. In the month of April, 1999, the wooden box was found tilted down from the wall. According to the petitioner, the matter was informed to the concerned Assistant Electrical Engineer as also to one Mr. Mohanty, who was the Incharge of the substation, with a copy to the Superintending Engineer, by letter dated 26th April, 1999. According to the petitioner, inspite of such requests, no action was taken by the respondents to fix the meter box properly on the wall. Later on, the authorities of the Electricity Board alleged theft of electricity and lodged one First Information Report on 20th January, 2000 on the basis of a report, submitted by the Committee, headed over by the Electrical Executive Engineer. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that CTPI box, adjacent to the meter, was found broken and the electrical theft was being made by the petitioner. It was further alleged that though average consumption by the unit is shown as 1500 unit per month, at least 6000 unit per month is being utilized by the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the First Information Report was lodged by the officer of the Board, just to harass the petitioner. The meter box having tilted down, the matter was informed to the concerned authority, including the higher authority, and because of latches on their part, no action was taken. Now with a view to suppress their latches, First Information Report has been lodged mala fide against the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the petitioner being LTIS consumer, is supposed to draw minimum 80 units per HP, which comes to 6320 units per month. If the petitioner is bound to pay minimum at the rate of 6320 units per month, the question of theft of energy up to 6000 units cannot be alleged. Learned course for the petitioner submitted that during pendency of the writ petitioner, the respondents illegally raised a supplementary bill for the period, in question, on the basis of the First Information Report for Rs. 1,17,089.89 paise, which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing an amendment petition.;