Order The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It has a High Tension Industrial connection for running an Induction Furnace, which I am told consumes enormous amounts of electrical energy. 2. The officials of the Board inspected the Company's unit on 27.3.1999. They found there that the seal on the C.T./P.T. top cover was missing; that the incoming and outgoing jumpers of C.T./P.T. were of bare conductor and that the distance between the jumpers of R & B Phases was only 10 inch. They also found that there was no signature on the terminal box cover of the C.T./P.T. unit and there was only one seal bit tagged at only one point. The inspection report giving the details of other findings is at Annexure 2. On the basis of a the inspection held on 30.3.1999 a first information report was also lodged alleging theft of electrical energy against one Chakarvarty Prasad, the Director of the petitioner company. The First Information Report (Annexure 3) gave rise to Purnia Sadar P.S. Case No. 181 of 1999. 3. On 26.4.1999 a bill for Rs. 1,72,30,901.00 paise (copy at Annexure 4) was issued against the petitioner. The bill was raised under clause 16.9. of the tariff which contains the penal provisions for raising bills in case of theft of electricity. 4. It may be noted here that four days before the issuance of the aforesaid bill a second inspection of the unit was held on 22.4.1999 which led to the filing of another first information report. A copy of the F.I.R. based on the second inspection held on 22.4.1999 is brought on record as Annexure 'A' to the counter affidavit filed by the Board. 5. Mr. Bajla, counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the objective findings recorded during the inspection held on 22.4.1999 were damning against the petitioner and conclusively etablished that the petitioner was engaged in the theft of electricity. In the F.I.R. it is stated that the inspection team arrived at the company's factory premises at about 11.15 A.M. On seeing the inspection team, the induction furnance which was in operation from before was shut down but motors of different capacities, adding to a total of 55 HP, and some other electrical appliances were left in operation. In the F.I.R. it is stated that the inspection team arrived at the company's factory premises at about 11.15 A.M. On seeing the inspection team, the induction furnance which was in operation from before was shut down but motors of different capacities, adding to a total of 55 HP, and some other electrical appliances were left in operation. The Inspecting team entered the meter room by breaking open its lock and took the reading recorded in the meter at 11.31.22 A.M. The inspection team stayed there for over four hours with the motors and electrical appliances running but the meter did not record the consumption of a single unit over that period. Then on investigation it was detected that the linking device in the C.T./P.T. box was tampered with. On opening the C.T./P.T./box it was found that the four terminals of C.T. were short circuited by connecting them with a copper wire and as a consequence no current was being allowed to pass through the meter terminal. 6. In course of inspection it was further found that an underground three phase cable was taken to supply electricity from the petitioner's connection to another unit under a different company set up on the adjacent piece of land. An application for giving electrical connection to that unit was made about six months ago and the matter of giving connection to it was still under process. 7. In course of that inspection a number of articles were seized from the petitioner's premises which included plastic seal bits, plainly showing that the C.T./P.T. were being freely tampered with by removing the seals put there by the Board officials and replacing them by fake seals. These are some of the more serious findings/allegations made on the basis of the inspection held on 21.4.1999; the rest of the details are to be seen in the F.I.R./inspection report. 8. The petitioner was then given a notice of disconnection on 21.5.1999 and its electrical line was finally disconnected on 24.5.1999 for non-payment of the bill, dated 26.4.1999. 9. Mr. Pawan Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the action of the Board in raising the bill (dated 26.4.1999) under clause 16.9. 8. The petitioner was then given a notice of disconnection on 21.5.1999 and its electrical line was finally disconnected on 24.5.1999 for non-payment of the bill, dated 26.4.1999. 9. Mr. Pawan Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the action of the Board in raising the bill (dated 26.4.1999) under clause 16.9. of the tariff and in disconnecting the petitioner's electrical line for its non-payment on the following grounds : (i) Learned counsel submitted that before invoking the provisions of clause 16.9 of the tariff and raising the impugned bill on that basis, the Board did not give any notice or opportunity to the petitioner to explain its position and to show that it was not committing any theft of electricity. According to the counsel on this ground alone the impugned bill was bad, illegal and unsustainable in law. (ii) He further submitted that there were sufficient materials and circumstances to indicate that the impugned bill, dated 26.4.1999 was raised on the basis of the inspection held on 27.3.1999 (and not on the basis of the subsequent inspection held on 22.4.1999). Further, according to to him on the basis of the inspection report dated 27.3.1999 and the First Information Report instituted on its basis it could not be said that the petitioner was committing any theft of electricity and the findings recorded in the inspection report dated 27.3.1999 and the allegations made in the F.I.R. instituted on its basis did not attract the penal provisions of clause 16.9. of the tariff. As ancillary to this submission, Mr. Pawan Kumar further contended that the provisions of clause 16.9. of the tariff being penal in nature must receive a strict construction. (iii) He next submitted that if it was held that the bill was raised on the basis of the inspection held on 22.4.1999, it was not permissible for the Board to go behind for a period of six months from the date of the inspection for the reason that no theft of electricity was detected (according to him) in the inspection held on 27.3.1999 and, therefore, on the basis of the inspection held on 22.4.1999 a bill in terms of clause 16.9 could be raised only for the period between 27.3.1999 to 22.4.1999. (iv) He further submitted that a criminal case being pending on the same allegations, a finding of theft of electrical energy could not be arrived at during its pendency, and (v) He lastly submitted that the petitioner's line was disconnected even before the expiry of the seven days from the date of disconnection notice. 10. Without expressing any opinion on the rest of the submissions made by Mr. Pawan Kumar, I find some substance in the first submission made by him that the Board was legally obliged to give the petitioner a show cause notice before formally arriving at the finding regarding theft of electrical energy by it and raising bill(s) in terms of clause 16.9. of the tariff. 11. The charge of theft of electricity is a grievous charge and it has highly stringent consequences. Once a finding of theft is arrived at, penal charges are to be levied in terms of the inflexible formula laid down in clause 16.9. of the tariff and here the matter goes even beyond the discretion of the Board inasmuch as it cannot impose a lesser penalty than the one provided under clause 16.9 of the tariff. It is also undeniable that the penalty under clause 16.9 is very steep (as it should undoubtedly be in a case of theft) and in some cases it may work out to be 18 times higher than the normal charges Further, once a bill under clause 16.9 of the tariff is raised the concerned consumer is left with no alternative. He must either pay or face the disconnection of his Electricity line and even the disconnection may not save him from further coercive action for payment of the demand made under clause 16.9. There is no internal mechanism within the Board where the consumer might go and try to show that he was not committing any theft and raising of the demand under clause 16.9 was a mistake. Thus having received a bill under clause 16.9. and facing disconnection for its non-payment the only course open for the concerned consumer is to seek the remedy of judicial review by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court which has its own limitations. 12. Thus having received a bill under clause 16.9. and facing disconnection for its non-payment the only course open for the concerned consumer is to seek the remedy of judicial review by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court which has its own limitations. 12. The aforesaid facts and circumstances in my considered view make out a strong case for insisting on compliance with the principles of natural justice, at least in some measure, before raising the bill wider clause 16.9 of the tariff. 13. Mr. Bajla appearing on behalf of the Board submitted that the objective findings coming to light in course of the subsequent inspection on 22.4.1999 were so overwhelming that the theft of electricity at the hands of the petitioner was self evident and no other inference was possible on the basis of the findings noted in the inspection report dated 22.4.1999. According to Mr. Bajla, therefore, in the facts of this case there was hardly any need for a further notice allowing the petitioner the opportunity to show cause. 14. I am unable to accept the submission. As the saying goes hard facts may often lead to the making of bad law and the court must always be on its guard in such cases. If the submission of Mr. Bajla is accepted and an exception is made in this case then it will become difficult to draw a line between cases where a show cause notice may be required and where it may not be required. It must, therefore, be held that in all cases in which clause 16.9 is invoked, the Board would be required to give a notice to the concerned consumer and to consider its show cause, if any, filed within the specified time. 15. I am supported in my view by a ranch decision of this court in Bihar State Electricity Board & Others vs. M/s. Sri Bir Ispat, 1998 (3) BLJR 1985 : 1999 (1) PLJR 466. In that decision after considering a number of judgments it was held and observed in para 19 as follows : "The second submission also deserves the same fate. No person can be declared as a thief unless such a question has been determined after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. But that has not been done so far in the present case. No person can be declared as a thief unless such a question has been determined after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. But that has not been done so far in the present case. The Court can neither presume a person to be a thief nor can punish him on such a presumption. If after due notice the Board comes to the conclusion that a consumer is guilty of theft of electrical or any other malpractice it is open to it to take action against it in accordance with law." 16. Following the Division Bench decision in the case of M/s. Sri Bir Ispat two Hon'ble Judges of this court, sitting singly, passed a similar orders in two cases, one being CWJC No. 3189/1998 (R) (B. L. Steel Pvt. Limited vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others : date of disposal 23.2.1999) and another being CWJC No. 2290/1999 (R) (M/s. Shiv Shakti Cement Industry vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others : date of disposal 2.9.1999). 17. For the forgoing reasons I am constrained to hold that the impugned bill dated 26.4.1999 (Annexure-4) is bad, illegal and unenforceable. It is accordingly set aside. 18. Normally, on setting aside the bill this Court should have given the direction for the restoration of the electrical line of the consumer disconnected for non-payment of the bill. In the special facts and circumstances of this case, however, I am not inclined to do so. Instead, I 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. The notice will be given by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Kosi Area Electricity Board, Saharsa or by any other officer of the Board of an equal or higher rank. The officer issuing notice will consider the petitioner's show cause, if any, filed 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. 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 on 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 petitioner's show cause rejects the pleas raised on behalf of the petitioner he will pass a speaking order briefly assigning reasons. 19. This writ petition thus stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 20. Before parting with the records of this case, I would wish to observe that the Board may perhaps like to formulate a general policy and lay down the guidelines for its officials ensuring that in future such matters are dealt with lawfully and promptly. In laying down the guidelines due regard must be given to observance of the principle of natural justice. At the same time it must also be ensured that the imposition of penalty and application of other corrective measures might not be inordinately delayed by unscrupulous consumers on the convenient plea of non-supply of inspection report and/or other materials and by taking into collusion Board's own officials whose commitment to integrity and loyality to the Board's interests at times leave much to be desired. The Board may perhaps fix the rank of officer in the administrative hierarchy by whom the question of theft of electricity will be decided depending upon the nature of the electrical connection. It may also indicate the enclosures that should normally go with the show cause notice and fix a time frame within which the show cause notice is to be issued, its reply asked for from the consumer and the final order passed in the light of the material facts and circumstances in the possession of the Board and the show cause, if any, filed by the consumer. Such a procedure would not only benefit the Board but it would also take off a number of avoidable litigations before this Court. 21. Let a copy of this order be given to counsel for both the parties.