PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that on the same day. i.e., 3.12.2008 two inspection reports were prepared by the same team of officials of the Board headed by the Electrical Executive Engineer; in the first of which it was found that the total connected load was 144HP and it was remarked that line was disconnected, service wire and meter were removed as the load was found excess than the sanctioned load; in the second report of the same date apart from the finding regarding connected load of 144HP. it was remarked that there was cutting in service wire before meter for bypassing. THEreafter an FIR was lodged and a penal bill dated 3.12.2008 for Rs., 61,21,535/- was issued.

(3.) IT is evident from the above admitted facts that firstly there is no whisper about bypassing of meter in the first inspection report which speaks about the removal of meter, service wire and also excess connected load. Secondly, it is also admitted that sanction of extension of load was accorded on 18.6.2008 which could have been done only after due inspection of the premises of the petitioner and thus there appears to be force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the penal bill could not have been raised for any period prior to the previous inspection, although learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it could not have been done for before the period when the security amount had been deposited. However, since an FIR has been lodged, such issues of facts are matters to be taken into consideration by the Criminal Court which also has powers under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to fix the civil liability in such cases.