Judgment 1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of alloy steel products through the process of induction furnace. It has a High Tension Industrial Electricity connection for running the induction furnaces in its factory. On August 26 and 27, 1999 a team of the officials of the Board inspected the petitioners factory premises and on the basis of the findings coming to light during the inspection it was found and held that the petitioner was engaged in theft of electricity. On 28.8.1999 the electricity line of the petitioner was disconnected and three days later, on 31.8.1999 it was given a bill for Rs. 8,85,77,131.00 raised under the penal provisions of clause 16.9 of the Boards tariff. 2. The petitioner then filed C.W.J.C. No. 8939/99 challenging the action of the Board in disconnecting its electricity line and raising a demand against it under clause 16.9 of the tariff. That writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order, dated 27.9.1999 passed by me. In that judgment this court noted some of the material circumstances and findings which, according to the Board, led to the inescapable inference that the unit was engaged in theft of electricity. In paragraphs 9 to 14 of the judgment in the earlier case it was noted as follows : "9. According to the Board, in the inspection held on 26.8.1999 it was found that the unit which had a contract demand of 4800 KVA was having two operational induction furnaces, each of 6 metric tons capacity. Thus, the total capacity of the operational induction furnaces in the unit was 12 metric tons. It is further contended on behalf of the Board that it was well established beyond any doubt that a load of 600 KVA was required for running an induction furnace of 1 metric ton capacity. On that basis a load of 7200 KVA would be required for operation of two induction furnaces, each of 6 metric tons capacity. According to the Board, this was also indicated from the total capacity of transformers at the unit being 7230 KVA. It was stated on behalf of the Board that in the light of the above quoted findings from the inspection report it was plain and clear that the company had unauthorisedly exceeded its contract demand and this alone was sufficient to attract the provisions of clause 16.9 of the tariff. 10. It was stated on behalf of the Board that in the light of the above quoted findings from the inspection report it was plain and clear that the company had unauthorisedly exceeded its contract demand and this alone was sufficient to attract the provisions of clause 16.9 of the tariff. 10. It appears that while the inspection being held on 26.8.1999 was yet to be over it started raining around 8.30 in the eveing and the inspection team was, therefore, unable to examine the seals put on the terminal box of the C.T./P.T. unit. In that situation the C.T./P.T. unit, including the terminal box were covered by a plastic wrapper which was sealed so that the C.T./P.T. unit may be examined on the following day in as it is condition. In para 11 of the inspection note it was accordingly recorded as under : "11. C.T.P.T. Unit : Seal bit no. 0167673 P signed by BEE/Hq was fixed on terminal of CTPT enclosing there previous seal in plastic cover to main as it is condition and examination." 11. On the following day the inspection team came to examine the C.T./P.T. unit and its terminal box. In respect of the inspection held on 27.8.1999 there is no inspection report but only a seizure memo, (Annexure - 5) Para 3 of the seizure memo which describes the seized article is relevant for the present and it is as under : "3. ZABT KIYE GAYE SAMAN M/s JMD ALLOYS LTD. MAIN LAGA CTPT KE L.T.T. TERMINAL BOX MAIN PURV MAIN LAGAYA GAYA PLASTIC SEAL BIT NO. 045660 P JO TAMPERED PAYA GAYA TATHA HAS- TACCHAR BHI NAHIN PAYA GAYA." 12. The seal bit bearing no. 045660 P which was found tampered with was put on the C.T./PT. terminal box on 14.5.1999 as appearing from the inspection note of that date (Annexure - 2). 13. Mr. Y. V. Giri, with the aid of a plastic model explained to me the construction and main features of the C.T./P.T. box and its terminal. I was told that the C.T./P.T. is the abbreviated form of current transformer-potential transformer. The electric current coming at very high voltage from the main lines of the Board is made to pass through the C.T./P.T. unit in order to suitably bring down the voltage at which the current may be used in the factory. I was told that the C.T./P.T. is the abbreviated form of current transformer-potential transformer. The electric current coming at very high voltage from the main lines of the Board is made to pass through the C.T./P.T. unit in order to suitably bring down the voltage at which the current may be used in the factory. Attached to the main C.T./P.T. box is a smaller box called the C.T./P.T. terminal box. It houses the terminals from which wires go to the metering unit for recording both KVA and unit consumption. Both the main C.T./P.T. box and the C.T./P.T. terminal box are to be kept under seals put by the officials of the Board bearing the signature of the official affixing the seal. If the seal on the C.T./P.T. terminal box is removed the terminals become easily accessible to the consumer and by fiddling with those terminals e.g. by removing the wires or putting wires of higher resistence, the flow of energy to the metering unit can be manipulated and if so desired, the C.T./P.T. terminals can be easily fixed so as to show a very low recording of both KVA and unit consumption. 14. According to Mr. Giri, the seizure memo clearly showed that the seal on the C.T./P.T. terminal box was tampered with. In other words, the petitioners men had reached the C.T./P.T. terminals. Learned counsel further submitted that this objective finding, coupled with the fact that in the petitioners unit there were two induction furnaces with the total capacity of 12 metric tons, requiring energy at 7200 KVA, made it plain and clear that the petitioners men were engaged in the theft of electricity and in withdrawal of energy at a much higher load than the contract demand of the company. In support of the inference Mr. Giri also referred to some other circumstantial materials which are not necessary to be stated here." 3. Having thus taken note of the case of the Board in connection with the theft of electricity committed by. the petitioner, this court, on the legal issue involved in the case, went on to hold that before invoking the penal and highly stringent provisions of clause 16.9, the Board was obliged to give a notice to the concerned consumer and to consider its show cause, if any, filed within the specified time. the petitioner, this court, on the legal issue involved in the case, went on to hold that before invoking the penal and highly stringent provisions of clause 16.9, the Board was obliged to give a notice to the concerned consumer and to consider its show cause, if any, filed within the specified time. It was, therefore, held that the bill, dated 31.8.1999 was unsustainable in law because it was raised without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner and it was accordingly set aside. This court, however, declined to issue any direction for immediate restoration of the petitioners electrical line but disposed of that case by giving the following directions : "I accordingly direct that a show cause notice in the light of this judgment be given to the petitioner within a week from today. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all his defences against the charge of committing theft of electrical energy and /or drawing electrical energy at a load much higher than its contract demand. The notice will be given by the General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer, Central Bihar Area Electricity Board, Patna or by any other officers of the Board of an equal or higher rank. The officer issuing notice will consider the petitioners show cause, if any, filled within a week from the date of service of the notice.. He will then pass a final order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing if so requested. The final order will be passed within seven days from the date of receipt of the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner. The liabilities of the petitioner will be determined on the basis of the final order passed in this matter and it will be open to the Board to raise a fresh bill on the basis of that order. Needless to say that in case the officer considering the petitioners show cause rejects the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner he will pass a speaking order, briefly assigning reasons." 4. Pursuant to the direction given by this court the Chief Engineer (Transmission) issued a detailed show cause notice to the petitioner under his memo no. 1926, dated 13.10.1999 enclosing copies of the inspection report, seizure list, F.I.R. and a number of other material documents. The petitioner filed its reply to the show cause on 20.10.1999. Pursuant to the direction given by this court the Chief Engineer (Transmission) issued a detailed show cause notice to the petitioner under his memo no. 1926, dated 13.10.1999 enclosing copies of the inspection report, seizure list, F.I.R. and a number of other material documents. The petitioner filed its reply to the show cause on 20.10.1999. Thereafter the Chief Engineer heard the lawyers representing the petitioner and the Board on two dates and finally passed the order dated 27.10.1999. In that order he reiterated the finding that the petitioner was engaged in theft of electricity and the case attracted the provisions of clause 16.9(b) (c) of the tariff. He accordingly directed the Electrical Executive Engineer to issue a fresh bill, in terms of the order, under the provisions of clause 16.9. 5. Though the Chief Engineer has also given some additional circumstances and grounds, the finding of theft of electricity is founded mainly on the same facts and circumstances as noted in the earlier case and as quoted above in this judgment. 6. The petitioner is once again before this court now trying to challenge the order, dated 27.10.1999 passed by the Chief Engineer following the direction given earlier by this court. 7. The counsel for the parties were heard at length in support of their respective cases and at times it appeared that the petitioner wished this court to sit in appeal over the order passed by the Chief Engineer and to examine the correctness of the order by making a reappraisal of the material facts and circumstances relied upon by the Chief Engineer. 8. Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to assail the oder passed by the Chief Engineer on the following grounds : (i) The finding that C.T./P.T. terminal seal was tampered with does not lead to the inference in law that any interference was made with the metering system or that the unit was committing theft of electricity. (ii) As a matter of law, in the case of High Tension consumer there is no co-relation between the contract demand and the installed demand. (iii) There was no scientific basis for holding that 600 KVA would be required for melting/producing 1 MT of steel. (ii) As a matter of law, in the case of High Tension consumer there is no co-relation between the contract demand and the installed demand. (iii) There was no scientific basis for holding that 600 KVA would be required for melting/producing 1 MT of steel. (iv) The offer made by the Bihar Steel Manufacturers Association cannot form the basis of assessment of load even if clause 16.9 were to apply to the facts of this case. (v) The penal provisions of clause 16.9 would have no application in the absence of a finding that as a matter of fact theft of electricity was being committed or excess load was being used in the factory. 9. The grounds advanced for assailing the order passed by the Chief Engineer would appear quite unfounded if one appreciates correctly the case of the Board. The Boards case is based on the premise that in the manufacture of alloy steel products, by the method of induction furnace, 600 KVA load would be required for melting/producing 1 MT of steel. The aforesaid load may go up even higher in case of full capacity utilisation of the furnace and depending upon the nature of the scraps used for melting. Proceeding from this premise it was pointed out that in the petitioners factory there were two induction furnaces each of 600 MT capacity. The total capacity of the two furnaces being 12 MT, the required load in the factory would be no less than 7200 KVA. This was also confirmed from the fact that the total capacity of the transformers within the factory premises added upto 7230 KVA. As against the load of 7200 KVA deducible theoritically, the contract demand of the petitioner was only 400 KVA and the meter installed there was also showing much lower figures more in conformity to the petitioners contract demand, than in accordance with the theoritically correct figures of 7200 KVA. This naturally implied that the metering system was interferred with and it was not reflecting the true position and sufficient proof for this was found when in course of inspection the seal on the C.T./P.T. terminal box was found interferred with. This naturally implied that the metering system was interferred with and it was not reflecting the true position and sufficient proof for this was found when in course of inspection the seal on the C.T./P.T. terminal box was found interferred with. On the basis of the calculations made on behalf of the Board it was shown to me that the petitioner unit was not only drawing unauthorised excess load but was also committing theft of electrical energy and the meter was recording very low figures both of the K.V.A. load and the consumed units of electrical energy. 10. Highly technical arguments were advanced before me both against and in support of the validity of the equation that 600 KVA load would be required in producing/melting 1 MT of steel in an induction furnace. Counsel for the parties relied upon treaties, manuals and handbooks of Engineering to show the correctness or incorrectness of the aforesaid equation. I can only say that from whatever I was able to gather I think that the equation in question does not seem to be quite unfounded and fanciful but it seems to have some scientific validity. I may, however, add that the above observation is more for the sake of records and in acknowledgement of the learned and highly technical arguments advanced by the counsel. 11. The main concern of a writ court is about the correctness of the procedure followed for arriving at the decision and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that there is no lacuna or irregularity in the process followed for arriving at the impugned decision. The petitioner was allowed a full and complete opportunity of putting forth its case and the order was passed by the Chief Engineer after taking into due consideration the case of the petitioner as well as all the material facts and circumstances. The findings cannot be said to be perverse or being founded on no evidence. I, therefore, see no scope for any interference by this writ court in this matter. 12. This writ petition is thus found to be without any substance or merit and it is accordingly dismissed.