DODDAKALEGOWDA, J, J. ( 1 ) RULE. THE ground on which the impugned demand has been made as per Annexure- c is :"that the energy motor was provided with fake seal. The consumption was being adjusted as per your will. This amounts to theft of energy and attracts back-billing with penal rate, calculation is given below and request you kindly arrange to pay the same within fortnight from the date of receipt of this letter, failing which the above installation will be disconnected without further notice please note. Connected load 2b. 5 H. P. + 24. 4 KWs-53 KWs. Consumption for 6 months with effect ) { =53x12x30x6 = 114480 Units. from Oct. 86 to March 1987. Less units billed (-) 7299 units billed now in theft of Elecl. , basis. 106181 bbc workout to including surcharges - = 10. 6,181x0. 75x3 times = 2,38,907-25 tax at 10 Ps. per unit - - = 10,61810 total Rs. 2,49. 225-35 " ( 2 ) THIS was preceded by an inspection on 2-12-1986 vide Annexure-A. The inspection notes of the official reads thus:"meter requires to be changed immediately. Till such time bill be sent on average basis. " ( 3 ) ON 19-5-1987 the officials of the board have inspected the meter and found the meter "sticky" and not recording the correct reading. On the same date he has made a statement as per annexure-B, inter-alia, pleading innocense and at the same time contended that he was not in a position to make out the difference between the original and the 'fake seal' found on meter bearing Serial no. 9113386 and would abide by best of judgment of the Board' on verification, as to whether the seal found on this meter is original or false otherwise. In other words, he pleaded that he has committed no offence either under the Act or under the Regulations so as to levy penalty. ( 4 ) "theft of energy" as per Sec. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act "means, whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code ; and the existence of artificial means for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction. ( 4 ) "theft of energy" as per Sec. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act "means, whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code ; and the existence of artificial means for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction. Whoever dishonestly abstracts and consumes or uses any electric energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code". Relying on two decisions of the Supreme Court in ramachandra Prasad Sharma v. The state of Bihar ( AIR 1967 SC 349 ) and jagannath Singh v. H. Krishnamurthy ( AIR 1967 SC 947 ) it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that unless the petitioner is informed of the existence of artificial means through which he has abstracted the energy or consumed energy, he has not committed theft of energy. Per contra, Sri N. K Gupta, learned counsel for the Board, relying on Regulation 41 of the regulations and the decisions of this Court, submitted that when there is an alternative remedy this Court should not interfere. ( 5 ) AS has already indicated on 2-12- 1986, the Officer who inspected the mater has himself noticed that the meter was not working and required replacement. It appears that the Board has replaced the meter on 13-11-1987 during the pendency of this Writ Petition. It is during this interrugnum, the Board has made a demand for payment of Rs. 2,38,907 25 ps. for theft of energy. ( 6 ) THOUGH the two decisions of the supreme Court referred to above by the learned Counsel for the petitioner arose on conviction, the Supreme Court has exolained the scope and ambit of Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act. Supreme court in unequivocal terms has stated in the first case that it is not sufficient to say that the meter has been "tampered with and it was under the Control of the accused person". Supreme court in unequivocal terms has stated in the first case that it is not sufficient to say that the meter has been "tampered with and it was under the Control of the accused person". In the second case stated that existence of tampered meter as is found in the instant case does not amount to an artificial abstraction of electricity under Section 39 This Court will not and cannot decide, on the ratio of those cases as to whether the petitioner should be punished for an offence of theft under Section 39 of the Electricity act or be exonerated. ( 7 ) THIS Court is only concerned with the civil consequence that would flow from non-observance of minimum requirement of principles of natural justice re : non-application of mind by the Board in its proper perspective inclusive of its failure to inform the petitioner the mode or method adopted to abstract power would amount to theft and resultant position of running of factory coming to stand-still. The demand made for payment of a sum of Rs. 2,38,907 25ps. without complying the principles of natural justice must be held to be illegal and void. As the impugned action, results in civil consequence, assuming for the sake of argument that there is an alternative remedy under Regulation 41, it is no bar for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, Writ Petition succeeds impugned demand is hereby quashed reserving liberty to respondent- board to raise a fresh demand, if warranted in accordance with law. Rule made absolute. Writ Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .