JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the respondent no.2, Electrical Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now JUVNL), whereby and whreunder, on the basis of the average consumption taken from a tampered meter has reduced the amount to Rs.4,55,624/- from Rs.18,29,846/- as mentioned in the FIR lodged at Kuju Police Station by the licensee.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated, reads as under:

The petitioner is a licensee-cum-transmission utility and the officials of the petitioner inspected the premises of the respondent no.1 on 18.02.2008 and on inspection, it was found that all the seals associated with the CT box of meter body were tampered and thereafter, an inspection report was prepared by the said team.

Thereafter, the connection of the petitioner was also disconnected in view of Section 135(1-A) of the Electricity Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2003.

Pursuance to the inspection, an FIR was also lodged on the same day against the petitioner u/s 135 (1-A) of the Act, 2003.

Subsequently, the respondent no.1-consumer moved before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1280 of 2008 for restoration of the electrical connection which was disconnected by the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.03.2008, whereby, the consumer was given liberty to file representation before the respondent no.2 and in pursuance thereof, the authority was directed to decide the same within three weeks stating the total loss caused to the Board.

Thereafter, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, disposed of the representation and passed the final order of assessment dated 15.04.2008 as per which, the amount was reduced to Rs.4,55,624/- from 18,29,846/-, which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition.

3. It appears from the factual aspect that an inspection was said to have been conducted on 18.02.2008 under the provision of Section 126 of the Act, 2003 as annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It further appears that for the theft of electricity, an FIR was also instituted under the provision of Section 135 of the Act, 2003 on the same date. The consumer, namely, M/s Bajrang Bali Cement Company, the respondent no.1 herein, has challenged the said so called provisional assessment prepared under Section 126 of the Act by filing writ petition W.P.(C) No. 1280 of 2008 and the co-ordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition on 18.03.2008 granting liberty to file representation before the respondent no.2 and in pursuance thereof, the authority was directed to decide the same within three weeks in accordance with law.

The concerned Electrical Superintending Engineer has passed the order dated 15.04.2008 whereby and whereunder the total amount has been assessed to be Rs.4,55,624.00 to be paid within the period of 15 days as would appear from annexure-4, which is impugned in this writ petition.

4. Mr. Mukesh Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that whatever amount has been stipulated in the FIR, i.e., to the tune of Rs.18,29,846/-, decision has been taken by the Electrical Superintending Engineer which is of lesser amount, i.e., to the tune of Rs.4,55,624/-, as such the determination so made by the Electrical Superintending Engineer cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the instant writ petition.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-licensee and has gone through the material available on record as also the finding recorded by the Electrical Superintending Engineer in the impugned order dated 15.04.2008. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Sections 126, 135