- (1.) THE petitioner in this application has prayed for the following reliefs: - (i) for quashing of the inspection report dated 28.6.2008 (Annexure -5) prepared by the officials of the respondent - Board; (ii) to command upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith restore the power supply to the petitioner which was disconnected on 28.6.2008; (iii) for direction to the respondents to show cause as to why and on what basis loss of Rs. 43.03 lakhs as indicated in the FIR lodged against the petitioner, has been illegally calculated ? (iv) for direction upon the respondents not to coerce the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the FIR towards the purported loss, unless the proceeding/process as laid down under Section 126 of the Indian. Electricity Act, 2003 is undertaken and order of final assessment is passed.
(2.) THE petitioner is a consumer of HT electricity supplied by the respondent Jharkhand State Electricity Board for a total contract demand of 125 KV A. The petitioner's case is that ever since after the electric connection was given to the petitioner's premises, inspection of electric meter installed in the premises, used to be regularly made by the officials of the respondent -Board, the last being made three months prior to 27.6.2008 and at none of the inspections so conducted, did the officials of the respondents find any infirmity or tampering in the electric meter. Rather, on the basis of the meter reading, the monthly electric bills used to be raised by the Board and the amount of the bills used to be paid regularly by the petitioner. In the evening of 27.6.2008, a devastating fire broke out in the factory premises of the petitioner on account of electric short circuit and as a result of which cables, electric meter/C. T. Box documents and other articles got burnt and damaged causing loss of more than Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner. On the very next morning the petitioner intimated the Electrical Executive Engineer (ESD, Ramgarh) as also the Elecl. Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh, besides 1tle Officer Incharge Ramgarh Camp P.S. about the incident. Upon such intimation, the officials of the respondent -Board constituted a team and conducted an inspection of the factory premises of the petitioner on the evening of 28.6.2008 and prepared a report making a false and wild allegation that the fire was generated by the petitioner intentionally in order to tamper with the electric meter for facilitating theft of electric energy by destroying the evidence pertaining to the meter and the C.T. Box. On the basis of such allegation, supply of electricity was disconnected on the same night and a FIR was 10dged against the petitioner for alleged offences under Section 379 IPC and Section 135 of the Indian "Electricity Act and an arbitrary amount of Rs. 43.02 was shown in the FIR as the amount of loss caused to the respondent Board. Assailing the aforesaid acts of the respondents, Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the manner in which the inspection was conducted and the FIR lodged is totally illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Furthermore the amount of loss as declared in the FIR is totally arbitrary, inflated and without any basis nor is in accordance with the provisions laid down under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act and the respondents therefore cannot demand recovery of any such illegal amount from the petitioner. Learned counsel explains further that the provision of Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act lays down that in the event the inspection reveals possibility of unauthorized use of electricity and loss caused to the Board, then a provisional assessment of the amount of loss should be made and notice of such assessment should be first served to the consumer to enable him to raise objection and only after giving an opportunity of hearing in support of objection raised by the consumer the Assessing Officer should make a final assessment of the loss and then only can the Board raise demand against the consumer for payment of the final assessed amount. Learned counsel explains further that the amount of loss as indicated in the FIR is arbitrary, is obvious from the facts of the case inasmuch as even according to the FIR, the damage to the meter was caused in the evening of 27.6.2008. although the meter was functional and no tampering was found even by the respondent officials in course of their earlier inspection. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the extent of loss for the period less than 24 hours could be Rs. 43 lakhs. Learned counsel adds that since the petitioner has been running an industry having a large number of workers, continued disconnection of electric supply has been causing acute hardship not only to the petitioner but also to the workers and since final assessment of the loss is yet to be made and the dispute relating to the amount of money payable by the petitioner towards such purported loss is not likely to be resolved in the near future, the petitioner deserves an interim relief as earlier granted by this Court in the case of Gauri Shankar Corporation VS. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, by directing the respondents to restore the electric supply, on the petitioner making payment of a reasonable percentage of the amount of loss. By I.A. No. 2536 of 2008, the petitioner has made a further addition to his prayer in the writ petition challenging the order dated 14.7.2008 issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby the provisional assessment has been made and served upon the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 39 lakhs. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent -Board denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner. The stand taken by the respondents is that in course of inspection made by the inspecting team, it was detected that the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally destroyed the Meter by burning it to avoid the possibility of detection of tampering in the Meter and the C.T. Box and thereby to avoid his liability for unauthorized use of electricity. It is further stated that the provisional assessment for Rs. 39,59,112/alongwith 'detailed calculation of the loss caused to the respondent -Electricity Board on account of theft of electricity, was made and served upon the petitioner under the provision of Section 126(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 calling upon the petitioner to submit his objection and participate in the proceeding of the final assessment to be conducted by the Electrical Superintending Engineer -cum -Assessing Officer of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Despite the notice the petitioner has not appeared before the Assessing officer to enable passing of the final order of assessment as envisaged under Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act. It is also explained that the monthly meter reading cannot be treated as making inspection of the meter. Disconnection of electricity on account of pilferage of electricity is within the powers of the respondents under Section 135(1 A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Restoration of electric connection of the petitioner can be made within forty -eight hours only after the consumer deposits the assessed amount. Even otherwise, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner against the final order of assessment' as laid down under the Act itself and therefore, the instant writ application is not maintainable. Reference has been made by the learned counsel for the respondents to the judgment of this Court in the case of Durga Cement Co. [WP(C) No. 2776 of 2008] by the Single Bench which has been upheld by the Division Bench in appeal and several other cases in which the respondent -Jharkhand State Electricity Board was directed to restore electrical connection to the concerned consumer after they deposited the assessed amount.
(3.) ON hearing the learned counsel for the parties the facts which emerge are that on inspection made by the officials of the JSEB. they had found certain prima facie evidence on the basis of which it was inferred that electric meter was intentionally damaged by fire and in order to conceal the evidence of pilferage of electricity, C.T. Box and other electrical equipments were also damaged. Though formal assessment of the purported loss caused to the JSEB was made and mentioned in the FIR, but later, a provisional assessment of loss was made and served upon the petitioner calling upon him to file objection and participate in the proceedings to be held by the Assessing Officer for final assessment of the loss. The petitioner appears to have failed to submit his objection and to enable the Assessing Officer to conduct the proceeding for final assessment. The Electricity Act, 2003 lays down provisions which enables the consumer to prefer appeal against the final order of assessment after depositing 50% of the assessed amount. The petitioner instead of availing alternative remedy, has preferred this writ petition, which, under the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be entertained. It also appears that delay in conducting the proceeding for final assessment has been caused by the petitioner himself on account of his failure to file his objection. As such, the petitioner cannot expect any interim relief in the manner suggested by reference to some of the judgments of this Court in similar other cases where electricity supply was directed to be restored on the consumer depositing some specified percentage of the finally assessed amount. ;