1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to restore electric line, which has been disconnected without notice to it and also to quash the bill, which has been raised against the petitioner by treating it as H.T. consumer and to raise the bill on the basis of its sanctioned load of 79 H.P., which is under L.T. consumption.

2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and has established a Hard Coke Plant at Tundi Road, Panchrukhi, P.S. Gobindpur, District Dhanbad. The petitioner applied for electricity connection and he was given electricity connection in 1995 and the sanctioned load of the petitioner was 79 H.P. According to the petitioner, the load at no point of time exceeded the above sanctioned load. The petitioner has been consuming electricity within the sanctioned load and has been paying electric charges regularly to the Board. At no point of time, it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that the machine installed by the petitioner consumes electricity exceeding the sanctioned load. The meter of the petitioner became defective and later on a new meter was installed on 10-8-1998 and without any notice on 6-10-1998, electric line of the petitioner was disconnected. The petitioner made representation on 7-10-1998 and, thereafter, it was intimated by the Board by letter dated 7-10-1998 that the electric line of the petitioner has been disconnected as it has exceeded the load of 79 H.P., which was detected at the time of taking reading of the new meter vide Annexure-3.

3. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that at no point of time, the machines were inspected by the competent authority to find out as to whether the petitioner. in fact, exceeded the sanctioned load and only on the basis of the reading of the new meter, the Board has disconnected the electric line of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ application on 19-11-1998, wherein he has also challenged the letter dated 14-11-1998, by which a supplementary bill of Rs. 7,18,563.00 has been raised as per H.T. tariff. According to the petitioner, the respondents cannot disconnect the electric line without notice and they also cannot raise bill on the basis of H.T. tariff without completing the formalities for supplying line at H.T. energy. There is no inspection report or material on the basis of which, it can be said that the petitioner had exceeded the contracted, sanctioned load of 79 H.P.

5. The stand of the Board, as appears from the counter-affidavit, is that the consumption of electricity above 79 H.P. is treated as H.T. consumption and the consumer is liable to pay the energy charges accordingly. The meter of the petitioner became defective and during that period, the bill was raised average basis in terms of the tariff of the Board and the petitioner paid the same to the Board. The petitioner from the very beginning was consuming electricity more than the sanctioned load, as a result of which the meter became defective and the consumer used to pay electricity charges raised on average basis. Thereafter in August, 1998, the trivector meter has been installed in the premises of the petitioner with a view to check the theft of the electricity by the consumer in different manner. If a consumer consumes electric energy more than the sanctioned load, the maximum demand charge, which is known as K.V.A., shall be recorded in the aforesaid meter. On 6-10-1998, the factory premises of the petitioner were inspected in presence of the petitioner and the total load was recorded in the K.V.A. i.e. maximum demand as 87.7, which is more than 79 H.P. Again in September, 1998, the K.V.A. was found as 80.5 H.P., which is more than the sanctioned load. The consumption of electricity more than the sanctioned load is a theft and when this matter came to the notice of the authorities of the Board, they have disconnected the electric line of