ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the Panchnama (Annex-B), notice of disconnection (Annex. C) dated 16.3.85 and the demand notice with the revised bill (Annex. O) dated 17.3.85. 2. According to the petitioner he is engaged in the business of re-rolling of the steel, the petitioner has obtained a electricity connection from the respondent/Board bearing No. 15 and having its meter No. 1944035. According to the petitioner the officers of the respondent/board have been visiting the petitioner's factory every month and after inspecting the installation have been regularly making entries in the card. The petitioner had been never a defaulter as he had been regularly paying the bills. On 29.1.85 certain officials of the respondent visited the factory for taking reading of monthly charges took reading and signed the card. On 1.3.85 another officer of the Board visited the factory and inspected the meter installed in the factory. According to the petitioner the officer found certain defects in the meter. A Panchnama was prepared on the spot. According to the Panchnama seal of the meter was intact but was in fact an imitation of the original seal. The officer further observed that after opening of the meter box seal on M.D. resetting knob were found to be imitation of the original seals. On 16.3.85 the Divisional Engineer visited the factory and handed over the disconnection notice to the petitioner inter alia stating that in terms of clause 31 (a) of general conditions for supply of electrical energy the electricity supply was to be disconnected. The supply was immediately disconnected after service of the notice. The petitioner submits that alter disconnecting the supply the respondents served a notice on the petitioner on 17.3.85 that the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 14,22,98.73 for consumption on basis of the revised charges for the period June 84 to February 85 (excepting for the period August & December 84). The petitioner submits that the action of the Board in disconnecting the supply and making the demand are high handed and are contrary to the provisions of S. 26 (4) and 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act. The petitioner submits that the action of the Board in disconnecting the supply and making the demand are high handed and are contrary to the provisions of S. 26 (4) and 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act. According to the petitioner if there was any dispute relating to the meter the matter should have been referred to the electrical inspector and in accordance with the findings of the electrical inspector the recoveries could be made. 3. The Board in its reply submitted that S. 26 (6) does not apply to a case of fraud as according to the Board there was no defect in the meter but the seals were fradulently replaced and the meter was not permitted to register the correct consumption of the energy. It is also submitted that under the supply conditions the Board had asked for the production figures from the petitioner and taking average for past 3 months the revised consumption was arrived at therefore the petitioner was duty bound to make the payment. 4. In the matter of M.P.E.B. v. Kasantihai A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 71. The Supreme Court has clearly observed that if there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tempering with the meter or manupulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the energy supply to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained for the supply, such a dispute does not tall within the purview of Sub section (6) of S.26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraued in tempering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of S.26 (6) of the Act. An electrical inspector has therefore no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. According to the Supreme Court the only dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is defective or faulty in recording the correct electricity consumed can be decided by the electrical inspector under the provisions of the Act. The allegation made by the respondent that the seals were imitation of the originals certainly would amount to an allegation of fraud. Under such circumstances and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court without any hesitation it can be held that the matter was not required to be referred to the electrical inspector. The allegation made by the respondent that the seals were imitation of the originals certainly would amount to an allegation of fraud. Under such circumstances and applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court without any hesitation it can be held that the matter was not required to be referred to the electrical inspector. So far as immediate disconnection is concerned it has come for consideration before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7798/86 (M.P.E.B. Jabalpur v. Harsh Wood Products & Anr.) decided on 18.4.96. The Supreme Court has held as follows :- A reading thereof clearly indicates that the appellant-Board when it detects mat any Consumer has committed any malpractice with reference to his use of electrical energy including authorised alternations to installations, unauthorised extension and use of devices to commit theft of electrical energy, may without prejudice to its other rights, disconnect the supply of electricity forthwith and may call upon the consumer to make payment for compensation of the unauthorised use of electricity which is now stated to be a theft of electricity. It is not in dispute that an FIR had already been lodged for theft of electrical energy. It is seen that the proceedings have been drawn in the presence of the representative of the respondent industry and the meters were found to have been tampered with and respondents were called upon to pay the difference of the rate for electricity said to have been consumed during the stated period of tire detection. It would appear the said assessment was based upon the previous consumption. It is seen that since the proceedings arc pending, it would not be desirable to record any finding in this behalf. The learned counsel for the respondent placed strong, reliance on S.24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which contemplates seven days notice before disconnection. S.24 docs not apply to demand on detection of pilferage. It would apply to a case of regular supply made and prior demand for payment of electricity charges with a notice of seven days to be made and for failure to pay within the given time, after expiry of seven days, the appellant as a licensee would get the right to disconnect the supply of electrical energy. It would apply to a case of regular supply made and prior demand for payment of electricity charges with a notice of seven days to be made and for failure to pay within the given time, after expiry of seven days, the appellant as a licensee would get the right to disconnect the supply of electrical energy. It would thus be seen that disconnection will be in the course of regular supply of electricity for non payment of the usual bills but not to any case demand after detection of pilferage. The only question is : whether the consumer is entitled to hearing before disconnection ? In view of the conditions to which the respondents had agreed at the time of installation and also the prima facie conclusion reached by the authorities, it was not necessary to give further hearing to the respondents. The action taken by the appellant is not violative of Article 20 (1) & 14 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. 5. In view of the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court it can be held that it was not necessary to give hearing to the petitioner. 6. It was lastly contended that the Board without giving a show cause notice to the petitioner could not hold that the seals were imitations nor could revise the bill without hearing the petitioner. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that assuming a case of fraud a prima facie finding that there was a theft of electrical energy the Board without hearing the petitioner could disconnect the supply but could not fasten the monitory liability on the head of the petitioner, the officers of the Board inspected the premises but without hearing the petitioner have wrongly held that the seals were imitations. According to him the petitioner, if an opportunity was given to him could prove that the seals were not imitations and were not tampered with. According to him if the petitioner could prove that the seals were not imitations then there would have been no cause or occasion to revise the bills. 8. Shri Jaiswal counsel for the Board submits that as the petitioner had deposited part of the supplementary revised bill and had undertaken to make the payment of the rest of the bill, he is estopped from challenging the correctness or otherwise of the revised bill. 8. Shri Jaiswal counsel for the Board submits that as the petitioner had deposited part of the supplementary revised bill and had undertaken to make the payment of the rest of the bill, he is estopped from challenging the correctness or otherwise of the revised bill. Reliance was placed on M.P. Lime works v. Chairman M.P.E.B. M.P. No. 198 /83 decided on 6.11.87. Having gone through the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case because in the instant case when the amount was deposited by the petitioner he had clearly stated in his letter dated 18.3.85 that he was highly pressurised due to closer of the factory and under the built up circumstances he was forced to agree to the demand and make the payment. It was clearly stated by him that the payments made by him be treated to be the payments under protest till the matter is finalised after revision of the demand raised. 9. It is not disputed before me that on 1.3.85 the inspection was made by certain officers who had recorded that the seal on the meter box was broke out in presence of the representative of the consumer and was kept in an envelope duly signed and scaled. It was recorded in the Panchnama that the impressions of the seal were not matching with the sealing pliar impressions used by the Board officers. The Panchama further records that after opening the meter certain seals were found intact hut the said seals of meter body and M.D. resetting knobs were found to be imitations of the original seals. The said Panchnama was prepared on 1.3.85. It does not appear from the records that any show cause notice was given to the petitioner regarding this Panchnama to explain as to whether the seals were in fact the true seals or imitations. On 16.3.85 under the notice Annex. C the petitioner was informed that as the discrepencies in the seals were detected in accordance with clause 31 (c) of General Conditions for supply of electrical energy, the supply be disconnected w.e.f. 16.3.85. On 16.3.85 under the notice Annex. C the petitioner was informed that as the discrepencies in the seals were detected in accordance with clause 31 (c) of General Conditions for supply of electrical energy, the supply be disconnected w.e.f. 16.3.85. On 17.3.85 the Board had issued the notice to the petitioner that in view of the initiations the petitioners consumption has been revised from the months June and / July 84 to February 85 (except August & December 84) on the average consumption per metric ton on basis of the consumption for months of March, April and May 84 and the petitioner is required to deposit the demanded amount. It is clear from the series of events and the documents that after 1.3.85 no show cause notice was given to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity to explain his conduct or to prove that the seals were not initiations and suddenly he was forced to pay the amount. Shri Jaiswal was unable to contend that the petitioner was ever heard before issue of the demand notice. He was forced to concede that the petitioner could have proved that the seals were not tampered with by him and were the original seals. On being asked that if the petitioner could proved that the seals were not imitations of the original could the Board issue or revise the bill, he fairly stated that on proof of the fact that the seals were not imitations but were the original the board could not issue the revised bill, When a fiscal liability is sought to be imposed and such liability is based on an actionor in action of the consumer then the Board is duty bound to hear him. It would be far from the principles of natural justice and would not be a fair play that the officers of the Board developed an impression, presumed certain facts and treating that to be the legal evidence arrived to certain findings. In the instant case it is clear that some officers of the Board held that the seals were the imitations of the original. They have presumed that the imitations were used by the petitioner and on basis of the Panchnama and presumption they have held that the petitioner was liable to make the payment on basis of the average consumption. In my opinion this could not have been done by the Board. They have presumed that the imitations were used by the petitioner and on basis of the Panchnama and presumption they have held that the petitioner was liable to make the payment on basis of the average consumption. In my opinion this could not have been done by the Board. The petitioner was entitled to a fair opportunity to put his case before the Board that the seals were not imitations and were the originals. If an opportunity was given to the petitioner he could have proved that the seals were in fact placed by the Board itself. In absence of an opportunity to the petitioner to plead his case and prove his contentions the demand raised by the Board is per so illegal and is contrary to the provisions of law and the conditions shown in the general conditions of supply. 10. The petition is partly allowed. The demand raised under Annexure - D dated 17.3.85 (SE/RC/15/3.1.72) is quashed. The respondent shall be free to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner clearly stating that as in their opinion and on particular facts the seals were imitations of the original and as such the bills were required to be revised. If such a notice is issued to him by the Board he would be entitled to file his reply and produce evidence in support of his case. If ultimately the Board comes to the conclusion that the seals were imitations then it shall be free to take action in accordance with law. 11. The petition to the extent indicated above, with the above observations is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. The security amount if any deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him after due varification. Petition allowed