- (1.) PRAYER in this writ application is for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the Respondents to immediately and forthwith restore the power supply of the petitioner, which was disconnected on 14.6.2008. Further prayer has been made to direct the Respondents not to force the petitioner to pay any amount as mentioned by them, in the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER is a consumer of electrical energy in the H.T.S. category under Consumer No. NR -1/548, for a contract demand of 200 KVA since 10.10.2007. The petitioner used to pay monthly electric charges as per the bill raised on the basis of the Meter Readings. As per the usual practice every month a team of Board's Officials used to make periodical visits to the premises of the petitioner to check and verify the electric Meters and such verification was done in the month of March, 2008. On 14.6.2008, the Board's Officials visited the petitioner's premises and inspected the electric Meter installed in the petitioner's premises. On inspection the Board's Officials had found evidence which suggested prima facie to them that the Electric meter was tampered with, whereby the meter had slowed down and was not showing correct readings. Attributing the fault to the petitioner, the officials of the Respondent -Board lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner vide Govindpur P.S. Case No. 0186 of 2008 for the alleged offences ui1der Section 379 of the I.P.C. and under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stating therein that an amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs was the loss caused to the Respondent -J.S.E.B. On the same day, the electric supply to the petitioner's premises was disconnected. A provisional assessment of the amount of loss was subsequently made and the same was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to submit his objections if any. The petitioner has challenged the entire action of the Respondents, including disconnection of power supply and assessment of the amount as purported loss, as being absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of law under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions of the Supply Code Regulation issued by the J.S.E.R.C. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, if on inspection of the premises the Assessing Officer of the Board comes to a conclusion that the Consumer has been indulging in unauthorized use of electricity, the Assessing Officer shall make a provisional assessment of the Electricity charges payable by the Consumer and the order of provisional assessment shall have to be served upon the Consumer to enable the consumer to file his objections if any, against the provisional assessment and only after providing such reasonable opportunity that the final order of assessment of electricity charges payable by the consumer can be made. Learned counsel argues that such being a mandatory provision of law, the declaration of an arbitrary amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs as alleged loss being caused to the J.S.E.B. without making a provisional assessment and serve a copy thereof, to enable the petitioner to file his objections, is totally arbitrary and illegal. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for' the petitioner explains that even where the Assessing Officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of the electricity has taken place, then considering the fact that no anomaly or defect in the Meter was found in the month of March 2008, when the Board officials had inspected the electric meter, the maximum assessment amount towards loss could be made for the month of April, 2008 till 14.6.2008 when the alleged defect in the meter was detected. The provisional assessment if made even by applying the widest range of considerations, it could not exceed more than Rs. 3 Lakhs in all. The claim of Rs. 60 Lakhs is preposterously inflated and arbitrary. Learned counsel argues further that even otherwise, before finally deciding that the meter was defective, it was incumbent upon the officials of the Respondent J.S.E.B. to get the meter tested by an independent expert agency and only after obtaining the expert's Report, could the Respondents proceed to take any action under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent -Jharkhand State Electricity Board. Denying and disputing the entire claim and allegations of the petitioner, the Respondents would explain that the inspection of the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner had revealed that by means of inserting three number of external devices inside the meter, the measurement of current supply was interfered with and as a result of which there was a mismatch in the meter display, which did not correspond to the actual consumption of electricity. On the basis of prima facie evidence of theft of electricity, the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and the electric supply was disconnected in exercise of the powers under Section 135(1 -A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is further stated that a provisional" assessment of the loss sustained by the Board was made on the basis of which a provisional bill for a sum of Rs. 58,26,240/ - was "attributed to the petitioner but the petitioner did not chose even to file any objection against the same and on the of her hand, he had admitted his liability to the extent of Rs. 12,67,760/against the provisional amount of loss caused to the J.S.E.B.;