Per Seeking quashing of provisional assessment bill dated 22.08.2015 for Rs. 11,46,87,300/and seeking quashing of Inspection Report dated 21.08.2015, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioner M/s S. S. R. Sponge Iron Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company now known as Vrajraj Ispat Limited established a sponge iron unit and for that purpose it took electricity connection for a contract demand of 7200 KVA. On 21.08.2015 during an inspection, seals of Meter Room and Meter Box were found intact and MRI of the meter was done however, a First Information Report being Chowka P.S. Case No. 53 of 2015 for offences under Sections 135, 136 and 138 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was lodged on the allegation of theft of electricity. The electricity connection to the petitioner's unit was disconnected and on 22.08.2015 a provisional bill for Rs. 11,46,87,300/ was raised.

3. Mr. M.S. Mittal, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that though, the provisional assessment bill was issued on 22.08.2015, the First Information Report which was lodged on 21.08.2015 itself records theft of electricity for the same amount i.e., Rs. 11,46,87,300/which would establish that in preplanned manner an inspection was carried and a First Information Report was lodged. It is submitted that respondent nos. 3 and 4 demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner for rectification of the earlier bills however, the petitioner refused the same. The present case is an act of vendetta by the respondents. It is further submitted that the provisional bill in terms of third proviso to Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 can be issued only in terms of Section 126 and thus, without affording an opportunity of hearing provisional bill for Rs. 11,46,87,300/could not have been raised. Percontra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited submits that there is no provision for affording an opportunity of hearing to the consumer when a provisional assessment in terms of third proviso to Section 135 (1A) is made. The learned Senior counsel disputes that in W.P.(C) No. 2638 of 2012 this Court quashed the bill raised by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board.

4. Before dealing with rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties it is noticed that the petitioner has asserted that vide order dated 15.05.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2638 of 2012 this Court directed restoration of electricity supply however, the petitioner was not directed to make payment to the Board. A perusal of orders dated 15.05.2012 and 30.07.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2638 of 2012 would disclose that a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner company and provisional bill for more than Rs. 7 crore was raised. In the said writ petition also the petitioner challenged the inspection report. At the instance of the petitioner, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to send seized electric meter to National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi. Orders 15.05.2012 and 30.07.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 2638 of 2012 do not disclose that this Court quashed the provisional bill or the inspection report. The petitioner has not disclosed in the writ petition whether earlier, First Information Report was quashed by the Court. In the present writ petition challenge is confined to provisional bill for Rs. 11,46,87,300/as contained in bill dated 22.08.2015 including Rs. 23,09,65,524/which included previous arrears.

5. In so far as, challenge to the provisional bill for Rs. 11,46,87,300/is concerned, it is a matter of record that Chowka P.S. Case No. 53 of 2015 has been lodged on 21.08.2015 on the allegation of theft of electricity and for causing loss to the Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited to the tune of Rs. 11,46,87,300/. I find that the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with cases of theft of electricity in an entirely differe