1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) including Sri Ram Balak Mahto, the Advocate General.

2. Petitioner is the proprietor of Hero Honda motorcycle showroom at Chapra. He is also a consumer of the Board bearing Consumer No. 11815/NDS-II for the sanctioned load of 1 K.W. He is aggrieved by the action of the Junior Engineer of the Board seizing PVC wire alleging theft of electricity by the petitioner causing loss of Rs. 80,000/- for which First Information Report dated 25.12.2007 has been lodged against the petitioner. The seizure list and the First Information Report are contained in Annexures-1, 2 to this application.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the light of the allegations levelled in the First Information Report he deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000/- with the Board and receipt showing such deposit is dated 26.12.2007 and is contained in Annexure-3 to this application. It is further submitted that seizure made and the First Information Report dated 25.12.2007 is contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended with effect from 15,6.2007 when Section 135(1-A) was inserted in the Act providing for detection of electricity theft by an officer of the Board/licensee duly authorized by the appropriate commission. In this connection, it is further pointed out that the Act was enacted repealing the provisions of (The Indian) Electricity Act, 1910, Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1988 which initially did not contain any provision authorizing the Government or the Board or the Electrical Inspector to launch prosecu- tion for the offence of theft of electricity. The Parliament noticed such omission and enacted Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007 with effect from 15.6.2007 vesting the appropriate commission with the jurisdiction to authorize any officer of the licensee or supplier to take steps for detection of the offence of theft of electricity by filing complaint/lodging First Information Report. It is submitted that present First Information Report was lodged on 25.12.2007 by the Junior Engineer of the Board who was not authorized by the appropriate commission to take steps for detection of offence of theft and the junior Engineer had no jurisdiction to enter the showroom of the petitioner for detection of the offence of theft of electricity and for seizure of the PVC wire. The seizure list, Annexure-1 and the First information Report, Annexure-2 both dated 25.12.2007 are wholly without jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the standing order dated 5.8.1988 issued by the Board authorizing all Electrical Engineers of the rank of the Junior Engineer and above to detect electricity theft and to lodge First information Report alleging theft of electricity may have no bearing in the present case, as after repeal of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and insertion of Section 135(1-A) in the Act, the earlier standing order lost its force by virtue of repeal of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 because the standing order is directly in conflict with Section 135(1-A) of the Act. It is further submitted that Act is a consolidating enactment as it has consolidated the provisions of the three repealed Act(s). The standing order dated 5.8.1988 may have been operative until Section 135(1-A) was not inserted in the Act but after insertion of Section 135(1-A) the standing order dated 5.8.1988 being in conflict with Section 135(1-A) of the Act became inoperative and may not vest any authority in the Junior Engineers of the Board to enter the premises of the consumer and launch prosecution alleging power theft. In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab V/s. Harnek Singh, reported in (2002)3 Supreme Co