Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for following reliefs: - (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the Respondents to forthwith restore the electrical connection of the petitioner, which has been disconnected on 24.04.2011, which although was done for carrying out certain rectification, but was never restored, pursuant to an inspection alleging unauthorized use of electricity in terms of Section 135, 137 & 138 of Electricity Act, 2003, inasmuch as the said disconnection is contrary to the provisions as contained in Clause 15.8(X) as well as Clause 15.8(XI) of the amended provisions of Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2005; (b) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the Respondents to forthwith install a new meter including the check metering system for the purpose of restoring supply to the factory premises inasmuch as in terms of Clause 15.8(X), the Respondents are under an obligation to restore the electrical supply of the consumer, once they suspect of unauthorized use of electricity. (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the inspection report dated 25.05.2011 wherein allegation has been made that by sabotaging the check metering system, unauthorized usage of electricity was being indulged into in terms of Section 135, 137 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003, inasmuch as merely because the check metering system was found not working properly does not lead to the conclusion that petitioner was indulged into any kind of malpractice or the check metering system was interfered with by the petitioner, which is not at all within the control of the petitioner and is installed outside factory premises of the petitioner. (d) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the provisional bill dated 27.04.2011, which has been raised in absolute contradiction to clause 15.8(X) of the Electric Supply Code (Amendment) Regulations, 2005, whereby and whereunder, until and unless the suspicion is converted into reliable proof, the question of raising any provisional bill under section 126 does not arise, that apart the Electric Supply Code (Amendment) Regulations, 2005 does not provide for realisation of charges by the Licensee from the consumers towards installation of new metering unit, for which also claim has been made by the Respondents. (e) For issuance of any other appropriate directions/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.
(2.) IT appears that during the pendency of this writ application, petitioner has deposited the provisional assessed amount i.e. Rs. 3,60,190/ - under protest. It then appears that after deposit of the same, the electric connection of the petitioner has been restored. Thus, at present, petitioner is confining its prayer for quashing the provisional assessment order as contained in Annexure -4 and further prays that the amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded and/or adjusted in future bill. Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and running an Induction Furnace Plant at Adityapur and for that purpose took electrical connection from the respondents having a contract demand of 1200 KVA.
(3.) IT then appears that an inspection carried out in the premises of the petitioner on 18.04.2011 as per direction of the Member (Distribution) of the J.S.E.B. On that inspection, no abnormality found in the metering unit and/or any other equipments installed in the premises of the petitioner for supply of electricity. Accordingly, an inspection report (Annexure -2) prepared, which was signed by the representative of the petitioner.;