AJAY KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA SON OF SRI LOK NATH JHUNJHUNWALA MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TAKING into account the question involved at an earlier occasion there was direction for analogous hearing of Cr.W.J.C. No. 23/2006 as well as the present Cr.W.J.C. No. 269/2008 but as the learned counsel for the Vigilance conceded over application of ratio decided by the Division Bench of our own High Court reported in 2011 (1) PLJR 1064, hence Cr. Writ No. 23/06 was allowed in terms thereof (whole brief has been filed by way of supplementary affidavit).

(2.) AS the learned counsel for the Vigilance submitted that the ratio decided by the aforesaid Division Bench is not applicable so far present writ is concerned. Hence, there has been full-fledged hearing of instant writ petition.

(3.) THOUGH at initial stage learned counsel for the Vigilance refuted the argument raised on behalf of petitioners as well as State Electricity Department submitted that under old Electricity Act as per Notification Vigilance was vested with power to register a case relating to electric theft. After repealing of old Act and substituted by Electricity Act, 2003 no office order has been issued in this regard, therefore as per Section 185 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the old Notification will survive and in the aforesaid background, the institution of the case followed with investigation is justified. However, at the fag end of the argument, fairly submitted that when the Department is itself conceding with the ratio decided by the Division Bench as referred above, it has nothing to say.