MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is posted for preliminary hearing I have heard the learned Counsel for thepetitioner and the learned Counsel for therespondents for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a proprietary concerndoing manufacturing of various plastic products. He is supplied with power through RR No. W-3p/164 ( 3 ) HIS accounts are mentioned in Ledger Folio No. 134. 3. On 21st February 1990 at about 8-30 p. m. when the Assistant Executive Engineer of theelectricity Board, inspected the premises of thepetitioner, he found that the consumer hasinserted a thick flexible plastic sheet of paper inbetween the glass of the mater and the body ofthe top cover and thus making the meter defunct. Immediately the officer concerned disconnectedthe power supply, by drawing a mahazer. Themahazer copy is produced as Annexure Respondent-1. The incident of that date is narratedthus:"it was noticed that the power installationof M/s. Oswal Plastics was running at 8-30p. m. On further inspection inside thepremises it was noticed that the RR No. of the installation is W3p-1643 on verificationof the Meter it was found that theconsumer had inserted a thin flexible plasticsheet (a paper thick) between the glass ofthe meter and the body of the top cover andthus making the meter not recording. Immediately the workers of the factory werecalled and shown the said thin plastic sheetinserted in the meter. There were threeworkers at the time when the premises wasinspected. One person was sleeping on acot near the entrance to the meter board. Immediately one of the workers pulled outthe plastic sheet which was inserted in themeter and ran away from the spot along withother workers taking the plastic sheet thatspoiling the evidence, since nobody were inthe factory and the evidence was alsoremoved the following observations weremade and mahazar drawn. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner questions the correctness and validity of the act of cutting power supply. ( 5 ) MR. Ashok R. Kalyan Shetty, appearing for the Electricity Board justified the action. In the statement of objections filedon behalf of the Board, department re-iteratedthe incident as mentioned above, andsubmitted that the act of the petitioner was inviolation of the regulation and therefore theofficer concerned was entitled to disconnectthe power supply immediately. It isalso stated in the statement of objectionsthat a demand of Rs. 3,01,417-20 Ps. onaccount of theft of energy and reconnectionfee of Rs. It isalso stated in the statement of objectionsthat a demand of Rs. 3,01,417-20 Ps. onaccount of theft of energy and reconnectionfee of Rs. 25/- has been demanded by sendingdemand notice to the petitioner throughregistered post as well as ordinary post. Itis stated that the registered post wasreturned unserved, but the one sent byordinary post is not returned. Therefore, itis contended that the demand notice is dulyserved on the petitioner. 5. In this petition I am not concerned withthe demand notice issued to the petitioner on24th February, 1990. I am only concerned withthe act of the Officer concerned who disconnectedthe installation on inspecting the premiseson 21st February, 1990. ( 6 ) MR. H. S. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner depended on the following clause in Karnataka Electricity Supplyregulations, 1988 ('regulation' for short ) andcontended that before disconnecting the powersupply, the inspecting officer must give showcause notice and disconnection cannot beresorted on the spot. Clause (c) of the Regulation 44-07 reads thus:"where any consumer or his. Agent or servant,etc. , is/was found committing any ofthe offence mentioned above, Board reserves the right to disconnect the installationforthwith and without notice. However, thesupply may be restored at the discretion ofthe Board if the consumer pays the deterrent charges demanded and/or takes suchother action as may be directed to by theboard. (emphasis supplied)Clause (d) of the Regulation 44-07 readsthus: "if any consumer obstructs Board's Officerfrom inspecting the premises at any time,to which supply is being given, theauthorised officer of the Board may disconnect the supply forthwith and without noticeand such obstruction shall be prime facieproof of prejudicial use of electricity andshall make the consumer liable to pay thedeterrent charges as specified above. " (emphasis supplied)THE offences enumerated include misuse ofelectricity, unauthorised extension of supply anddishonest obstruction/use/consumption ofelectricity or interference with the meteringequipment or accessories. Therefore, it is obvious that if any person is found committing anyof these offences the Board reserves right to disconnect the installation forthwith and withoutnotice. When such power is traceable to theabove clause, it is futile to contend that noticeshould have been given before disconnection isresorted to for the commission of the alleged offence. ( 7 ) MR. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on clause (a) of Regulation 44. 07, which reads thus: "where it is prima facie established to thesatisfaction of the authorised Officer of theboard that the consumer or his agent, servant etc. ( 7 ) MR. Dwarakanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on clause (a) of Regulation 44. 07, which reads thus: "where it is prima facie established to thesatisfaction of the authorised Officer of theboard that the consumer or his agent, servant etc. , has committed/is committing an offence in terms of Sections 39,44 or of any other provision of the Act or these Regulations, such Officer shall estimate the value of the Electricity thus abstracted, used or wasted or diverted, in accordance with the calculation table prescribed from time to time, for a period of six months or for such other period as may be deemed justified in the circumstances of any given case at thrice the rate of tariff applicable to such category of installation or at thrice the normal tariff applicable to the purpose for which the energy is abstracted, used or consumed or wasted or diverted, whichever is higher and demand and collect the same in including the same in the next bill or in a separate bill. Such amount shall be deemed to be arrears of electricity charges. (emphasis supplied) apparently this clause is intended to estimate the loss caused to the Board by the alleged act and device adopted by consumer while clause (c) empowers the officer to take immediate action on the spot. Clause (a) deals with commission of offence resulting in pecuniary loss to the Board which need to be investigated. The words "to the satisfaction of Officer," are not found in clause 'c, which signifies that the moment it is found' that offence is committed, the action of disconnection has to follow. The words with or without notice in clause (c) makes it manifest that it is not incumbent on the authorities of the Board to issue notice to the consumer and record satisfaction before disconnecting the installation which he has to do forthwith. The word "finds" obviously connotes what is "actually seen", "noticed" or "detected". It is something more than mere observation or suspicion or believe it to be done. This being specific power conferred on the authority concerned, it would not be open to the petitioner to contend that notice should have been given before disconnecting the power supply. The provision is intended to stop the "mischief detected. It is something more than mere observation or suspicion or believe it to be done. This being specific power conferred on the authority concerned, it would not be open to the petitioner to contend that notice should have been given before disconnecting the power supply. The provision is intended to stop the "mischief detected. It prohibits the continuation of illegal act and safe-guard the proper use of energy and also the pecuniary interest of the board. Indeed the consumer is caught while committing the offence, therefore, it is necessary to stop the operation forth-with. The Rule relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to the petitioner because we are not dealing with a case coming under clause 44-07 of the Regulation. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention. Accordingly Rule is discharged. Writ petition dismissed. No Costs. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .