- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the 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 17.1.2009 pursuant to a purported inspection and allegations of theft of electricity. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the purported inspection report dated 17.1.2009 by which the allegation of theft of electricity has been alleged thought from the careful perusal of the so -called/tabled/purported inspection report dated 17.1.2009 it would be evident that the allegations of tampered/duplicate seals have been made without obtaining the signature of any representative of the consumer and also without obtaining the signature of any independent body/third party. c. For a declaration that until such time the Electricity Board gets the meter tested under the provision of Clause 13.4 of Electric Supply Code Regulations 2005, the licensee cannot proceed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in raising penal bill, until such time the provision of Clause 13.4 of the Electric Supply Code are strictly complied with by the licensee. d. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to forthwith send the meter, which has been removed from the petitioners premises on 17.1.2009 to the third party investigation/laboratory, as approved by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. e. For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the third party investigation/ inspection by the Vigilance Department of the Government of Jharkhand, in order to analyze/investigate as to whether the seals alleged to have been tampered with/duplicate can be verified so as to arrive at a logical conclusion, as to whether at all the seals purported to have been tampered is the actual seals of the Board or not and also as to whether in order to harass the petitioner allegations of theft is being made or not.
(2.) THE matter has been heard at length and is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The main contention raised by Sr. Counsel Sri Y.V. Giri, for the petitioner is that there is total non -compliance of Section 126(1) and Section 126(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It has also been contended that the disconnection was also illegal and violative of the provisions of Section 126. He has also referred to and relied upon Clause 13.4 of the Electricity Supply Regulation Code to contend that a proceeding of penalty under Section 126 of the Act cannot be initiated until the meters gets tested by the Electricity Board and the allegation of tampering/duplicate seals was illegal. It has also been submitted that only the Superintending Engineer is the Assessing Officer and thus the entire exercise is illegal, invalid and liable to be set aside.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is guilty of theft and pilferage by breaking seals of the meters and as such he was liable for disconnection under the provisions of Section 135(1 -A) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is also submitted that the petition itself is premature since no final assessment has taken place and even otherwise the procedure has to be followed in accordance with the statute which clearly provides that the meters has to be sent for testing with prior notice to the consumer and he has a right to file objection within 7 days. ;