USHA BELTRON LTD Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.1.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 223 of 2000 (R) [2000(2) PLJR 836], whereby the writ court while quashing the energy bill amounting to Rs. 40,39,50,747/ - (rupees forty crores thirty nine lacs fifty thousand seven hundred and forty seven) raised against the appellants, has by way of an interim arrangement directed the respondent -Board to restore the supply of the electricity in the event the writ petitioners deposit with the Board a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/ - (rupees five crores) in cash and bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 15,00,00,000/ - (rupees fifteen crores) from any nationalised bank. It was further directed, if such amount is deposited, the Board shall restore the electric supply within twenty four hours from the date of deposit.

(2.) ONE of the grievances of the appellants is that although the Court has quashed the bill in question, but from a bare reference to paragraph 8 of the impugned order, it would appear virtually a finding has been recorded that there is a strong evidence of theft or pilferage of electricity.

(3.) IN our view, so far as the first grievance of the appellants regarding finding about theft or pilferage etc. there is no substance. Because such a finding has been recorded in the background that in a case where the authorities of the Board are satisfied that certain pilferage or theft of electricity was going on, then the electric supply shall be disconnected even without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no substance in appellants ' apprehension. Because when an F.I.R. has been filed with the allegation of theft or pilferage of electricity, the matter would be decided at appropriate stage by appropriate forum or by the authority before whom representations are required to be filed by the appellants in view of the direction of the learned Single Judge. The finding of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, in our view, is not a finding in this regard.