D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge passed in WP (C) No. 746 of 2008, whereby the writ application was disposed of with certain observations directing the respondents to raise a provisional bill and after considering and deciding upon objection, if any, by the petitioner, to repare and raise the final bill under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and, with a further direction to restore electrical connection to the petitioners factory premises subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs. 3.00 crores. The amount so deposited was made subject to final decision that may be taken by the respondents after considering the objections filed by the petitioner against the provisional bill.

2. Prayer in the writ application as made by the appellant/petitioner was for directions to the respondents:

1. To forthwith restore the power supply of the petitioner, which was disconnected by the respondent No. 5/7 on 1.2.2008.

2. To not to take any coercive/penal action against the petitioner pursuant to the FIR lodged against the petitioner.

3. To direct the respondents not to raise /charge any average/guarantee bill upon the petitioner for the disconnection period.

4. To award adequate compensation/cost to the petitioner for the purposed illegal actions of the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant/petitioner had taken electricity connection from the respondent Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for its factory at village Chaha in the district of Ramgarh in the year 2000. The supply of electricity was made through the appellants own erected supply lines. Initially, the appellant was the only consumer and therefore, single meter was installed by the supplier at its own end. There was no separate meter installed in the premises of the appellant. On account of the considerable distance from the sub-station to its factory premises, the appellant had suffered huge amount of transmission loss to the extent of Rs. 5.00 crores in between January 2001 to October 2004 to which, though respondent supplier had agreed to reimburse the appellant, but later, did not pay any heed in the matter. The appellant filed a writ application vide WP (C) No. 6023 of 2001 before this Court and obtained a direction from the Court vide order dated 29.1.2002 against the DVC authorities to take a final decision in the matter of grant of transmission loss to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Courts order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. A further direction was contained in the Courts order to the respondents to revise all the bills and to refund/adjust the excess paid amount. The respondent DVC failed to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court as a result of which, a sum of Rs. 5.00 crores as claimed by the appellant as excess amount paid by them, remained pending with the respondents.

4. The respondent DVC authorities continued to raise the bills upon the appellant on the basis of the meter, which was installed in the sub-section till October, 2004 whereafter a separate meter was installed within the premises of the appellant. The bills for electric consumption began thereafter to be raised on the basis of the readings in the meter installed within the premises of the appellant and till December 2007 appellant had continued to pay all the monthly bills. However, despite the fact that the feeder line was installed by the appellant at its own cost, the respondent DVC choose to supply electrical energy to two other consumers by the same feeder in July 2006 and in March 2007 through only single meter installed at the sub-station of the DVC, although separate meters were installed in the individual units of the consumers. The appellant claims that under the terms of the agreement, for the supply of electric energy, it is the supplier who has to install the metering equipment and to ma