NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to restore its electrical connection which has been disconnected on 3.1.07 after the inspection/meter reading held in its premises on that date. The petitioner has also sought for a direction on the respondents not to raise any punitive bill without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also for quashing the inspection report/meter reading report dated 3.1.07.
(2.) THE petitioner is a small scale industry manufacturing M S steel ingots at Adityapur Industrial Area, Adityapaur, Jamshedpur. According to the petitioner, it entered into an agreement with the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for supply of electrical energy having a contract demand of 1200 K.V.A. Subsequently, the meter of the petitioner had become defective which was replaced by the Board on 7.10.06. It has been stated that every month a team of the officers of the Board consisting of 6 -10 officials used to come and take reading of the petitioner's meter. The last inspection was held on 5.12.06. On that date, a team of five senior officials of the Board made inspection and prepared meter reading report. All the old seal bits of the Door, Meter Box and T P were removed and new seal beats were affixed. It has been stated that the petitioner has been making payment of the bills raised for consumption of electrical energy from time to time. On 3.1.07 at about 12.30 P.M a team of officers again inspected the petitioner's meter and took the meter reading. But, it was alleged that some of the seals were tampered and were not original seals. From the survey report of the M.R.I data it also appeared that from 17.12.06 till 3.1.07 the load consumption was less than what it was prior to 17.12.06. An F.I.R was lodged in Gamharia Police Station alleging pilferage and theft of energy causing loss to the Board to the tune of about Rs. 2,40,00000/ -. The case was registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') read with Section 379 I.P.C. The petitioner's electrical connection was also disconnected on 3.1.07 without giving the petitioner any prior notice regarding the alleged tampering etc and without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner denied the allegation of interference with the seals. According to the petitioner, the allegation of tampering with the meter and other allegations have been deliberately made, only in order to harass and humiliate the petitioner with ulterior motive. The grievance of the petitioner is that the abrupt disconnection of the electric supply of the industry has caused sudden closure of the industry and the petitioner has been put to suffer huge loss with various civil consequences and the said arbitrary and the said penal action of the respondents without giving any notice and any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of principle of natural justice. It has been stated that the respondents have also got no arbitrary power to raise any bill putting an imaginary amount as the penal dues. The said action of the respondents is also violative of Sections 56, 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the same is wholly illegal and whimsical.
(3.) MR . Y.V. Giri, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a consumer of the electricity supplied by the respondents and he has been paying the electric bills regularly. The petitioner's meter was regularly inspected. There was no allegation of tampering with the seals of the meter or any other seal on the last inspection held on 5.12.06. He further submitted that on 3.1.07 the meter was inspected and meter reading was taken but without giving any notice of the alleged tempering and any opportunity to explain on the alleged interference with the seals and causing loss of about two Crores and fifty Lakhs, not only as F.I.R was lodged but the petitioner's electric supply was also simultaneously disconnected causing huge loss to the petitioner -industry. Learned Counsel submitted that the electrical disconnection is by way of punishment on the allegation of theft of electricity and the said action visited the petitioner with civil consequences and there is a gross violation of the rule of fair play and principle of natural justice and the said action of the respondents is nullity in law. Learned Counsel submitted that in almost similar fact situation it has been held by a Bench of the Patna High Court in B.L Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. C.WJ.C No. 3189/98(R) that the Board has to afford an opportunity of hearing if any decision of the Board adversely affects the consumer. The same view has also been taken by the said Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. v. Sri Bir Ispat reported in 1998 (3) B.L.J.R 1985 and in Sheo Shakti Cement Industries v. B.S.E.B and Ors. C.WJ.C No. 2290/99(R). Learned Counsel submitted that even in case of unauthorized use of electricity, there is a clear provision for assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which also provides for giving a notice to the concerned persons and for affording a -reasonable opportunity of filing objections and hearing. He further submitted that the provision for disconnection of supply has been specifically provided under Section 56 of the said Act which, inter alia, envisages for giving 15 clear days' notice in writing to the concerned persons before disconnecting the supply line. It has been further submitted that Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides punishment for the offence of theft of electricity after proper trial but the same does not empower the Board to disconnect the line on a mere allegation of theft or only on lodging an F.I.R on such allegation. It has been submitted that the allegations of tampering with the seals and theft of electricity are to be investigated and trial and charge is to be proved in the Court of law and the Board has no unbridled power to punish the petitioner by disconnecting its electric supply line without taking recourse to law. Learned Counsel submitted that the respondents have acted maliciously and arbitrarily and against the mandatory provisions of law and they are liable to restore the petitioner's electrical connection forthwith.;