The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in cases of theft of electricity and the legality of the inspection and provisional assessment order.

PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

1. This writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:

(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing upon the Respondents to forthwith restore the electric connection of the petitioner which has been disconnected on 14.04.2010 pursuant to a purported inspection alleging unauthorized use of electricity in terms of Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003, inasmuch as the said disconnection is tainted with malafide and arbitrariness and without any reasonable basis thereof.

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the inspection report dated 14.04.2010, inasmuch as the allegation leveled against the petitioner based upon such inspection report alleging breaking of seals and unauthorized usage of electricity is not within the domain of Section 126 or 135 of the Electricity Ac, 2003, since merely because some of the seals were alleged to be found broken does not make out the case of theft of Electricity.

(c) For a declaration that until such time the Electricity Board gets the meter tested under the provision of Clause 13.4 of Electric Supply Code, Regulations 2005, the licensee cannot proceed under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in raising penal bill, until such time the provision of clause 13.4 of the Electric Supply Code are strictly complied with by the licensee.

(d) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing upon the Respondents to forthwith send the meter , which has been removed from the petitioners premises on 14.04.2010 to the third party investigation/laboratory, as approved by the State Electricity Regulation Commission.

(e) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the third party investigation/inspection by the Vigilance Department or the Government of Jharkhand, in order to analyze/investigate as to whether the seals alleged to have been tampered with/duplicate can be verified so as to arrive at a logical conclusion, as to whether at all the seals purported to have been tampered is the actual seals of the Board or not and also as to whether in order to harass the petitioner allegations of theft is being made or not.

(f) For issuance of any other appropriate writs or directions or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.

2. It is stated that petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement, slag and blast furnace slag commonly known as GBF slag. It is stated that for running the aforesaid industry, petitioner took electric connection from the State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred as the Board). It is submitted that the contract demand of the petitioner is 200 KVA. It is further stated that petitioner lodged a complaint before the General Manager-Chief Engineer, Singhbum Electricity Supply Area, Jamshedpur against the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Rajendra Ram that he is demanding Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and threatened that if the petitioner will not pay above amount, he will face consequences. It is further alleged that due to aforesaid threat the industry of the petitioner is on the verge of closure. It is further stated that since the aforesaid complaint was forwarded to the Chairman of the Board for taking action against Sri Rajendra Ram, he along with the other officers of the Board inspected the factory premises of the petitioner on 14.04.2010. It is further stated that the said team was led by Sri Rajendra Ram. It is further stated that during the said inspection, the inspecting team found that the seals of the distribution transformer is not property fixed. It is further stated that transformer was installed out side the factory premises and petitioner had no check and/or control over the same. It is stated that somebody else with