S. Muralidhar, J.

.1. The challenge in this writ petition is to a provisional bill dated 27.10.2002 issued by the Respondents raising a demand of Rs. 81,75,940.16 against connection No. XI-1849 based on an inspection dated 25.10.2002 as a result of which it was concluded that the petitioner had indulged in fraudulent abstraction of energy (FAE).

.Background facts

.2. The facts of the case are that pursuant to an agreement entered into with the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking(DESU) on 18.7.1989, the petitioner was sanctioned a load of 393 KW against the aforementioned connection for industrial purposes under the tariff schedule Light/Industrial/ Power (LIP). The petitioner states that it was paying the electricity bills regularly. On 21.10.2002, the petitioner made a complaint to the Grievance Redressal Cell that the meter was running fast. On 25.10.2002, the officers of the Respondent visited the premises of the petitioner and made the following observations in their inspection report:

.(a) Connected load of 443.70 KW was noticed in use by a registered consumer for Industrial purpose.

.(b) The meter of the Petitioner was found working within permissible parameters. The seal of metering cubicle were noticed in tact and OK. Seals of meter chamber door was alleged to be fictitious.

Proceedings before the PLA

3. It is stated that on 27.10.2002 the impugned bill was raised on the basis of 4x3 formula and that was received by the petitioner on 30.11.2002. The petitioner then preferred a petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) set up by the Respondent. On 1.11.2002 the PLA passed the following order:

As per inspection report, the only irregularity which was found by the inspection team was that three seals of the meter chamber doors were declared to be fictitious and on that basis FAE bill was raised without checking internal status of the meter. This fact coupled with the fact that seals of back plate of metering cubical, front plate of metering cubical and meter chamber window were found intact and O.K. In case, the internal status is checked and if no irregularity is found it may not be a case of FAE. Hence, it is in the interest of justice of both the parties that before any directions regarding part payment of bill is made, XEN(Enf.) shall get the internal status of the meter checked by the MTD staff under his supervision before 8.11.2002 for which date the case is adjourned. Neither disconnection of supply nor FIR shall be lodged till then.

The officers concerned be called on the next date of hearing along with complete details of the case.

Case is adjourned to 8.11.2002.

4. At the subsequent hearing on 8.11.2002, the PLA was informed that the internal status of the meter could not be checked. Thereupon, the PLA passed an order, the relevant portion of which reads:

It is admitted by Shri Sood that the petitioner had given the official copy of court order on Wednesday i.e. on 6.11.2002 but due to shortage of time, the internal status could not be checked. Since this Court is not even now in a position to come to a prima-facie view that it was a case of theft, I cannot call upon the petitioner to make payment of about 50% of the FAE bill which is under dispute. Shri Prem Chand, however, says that as per instructions of the higher authorities, he would request the court to direct the petitioner to make some part payment of about Rs. 15 to Rs. 20 lacs which will be refunded back within 7 days if on checking of internal status the theft bill is found to be not payable. Even the bill appears to be on higher side as about Rs. 7,30,000/- has been charged on account of load violation surcharge which is not payable, being the petitioner B/supply consumer. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, it is thereforee, directed that the petitioner shall submit Bank Guarantee in favor of BSES Rajdhani Power Limited for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- by 3.00 PM latest by Monday i.e. on 11.11.2002, fai