Judgment 1. In this writ application the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board in disconnecting the supply of electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner No. 1 and raising a provisional compensatory bill dated 17 January, 2000 for a sum of Rs. 40,39,50,747.00 and further for a declaration that there has been no pilferage or theft of electricity by the petitioners in respect of consumer No. HJ/AP041. 2. The petitioners case is that in the year 1973 by virtue of an agreement entered into by and between the petitioners and the Board the Board started supplying electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner for a sanctioned contract demand of 10000 KVA which was time to time enhanced by supplementary agreements to 19500 KVA. In 1994-95 the petitioner-company installed a Mini Blast Furnace used for the manufacture of Molten metal and the use of Molten metal in the Electric Arc Furnace of petitioner company as chargemix also significantly reduced the amount of electricity required to produce steel at the said factory. It is contended that for the first time disputes between petitioner company and the Electricity Board arose when the vigilance department of the Board filed a purported complaint alleging pilferage and/or illegal abstraction of electricity between the period April, 1986 and December, 1988. The proceedings pursuant to the said purported complaint are totally at stand-still and the same have been virtually abandoned by the Board who obviously have realised that the said purported complain was and is absolutely untrue. It is further contended that in January, 1996 Board formed a High Power Committee to assess the purported loss of energy in respect of electricity supplied by the Board to the petitioner company. The said Committee unconditionally admitted and acknowledged that the bills raised by the Board upon the petitioner company between 1991 to 1995 based on the readings of the meter installed at the said factory were in order. It is further stated that in 1996 Board raised a bill upon the petitioner company for Rs. 11.42 crores being the alleged dues on account of alleged loss for the period from 17th June, 1974 to December, 1990 and against the said bill the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1388/96 (R). The matter ultimately went to Supreme Court where a dispute has been referred to arbitration which is still continuing. 11.42 crores being the alleged dues on account of alleged loss for the period from 17th June, 1974 to December, 1990 and against the said bill the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1388/96 (R). The matter ultimately went to Supreme Court where a dispute has been referred to arbitration which is still continuing. The petitioners further case is that after November, 1998 the meter installed at take off structure became defective and ceased to function which has not been replaced so far. However, the authorities of the Board continued the cross check the recordings made at factory and with the recordings of consumption made on the grid panel meter in the control room after November, 1998 up to date. The authorities of the Board have acknowledged that the comparison of such date shows that the metering done at the factory end for the entire period up to and including the month of November, 1999 was in order. It is alleged that the official of the Board made an inspection in the factory premises on 4-12-89 which was premeditated and pre-planned for the purpose of creating a ground to allege pilferage of electricity by the petitioner company. Without giving any opportunity to verify the correctness and contents of said report the representative of the petitioner company was compelled to sign the said report. Subsequently by letters the authorities of the Board asked the petitioner company to provide diverse figures, documents and information, which was replied by the company and although payments were provided. Thereafter again meter installation and equipments in the factory premises of the petitioner was inspected on 13-1-2000 and submitted a report, on the basis of which the Board lodged an FIR in Gamharia Police Station alleging the pilferage of electricity by the petitioner and the supply of electricity was stopped. On the basis of said inspection report the Board raised a provisional compensatory bill on account of alleged theft of energy as per Clause 16.9 of the Tariff 1993 for a sum of Rs. 40,39,50,747.00 . 3. In the counter-affidavit the respondent-Board stated, inter alia, that during inspection of the factory premises of the petitioner enormous evidence was found to prove interference by the petitioner with the metering unit which established that the petitioner was in fact committing pilferage of electricity. It is stated that the incoming line was found to be bare up to certain point. In the counter-affidavit the respondent-Board stated, inter alia, that during inspection of the factory premises of the petitioner enormous evidence was found to prove interference by the petitioner with the metering unit which established that the petitioner was in fact committing pilferage of electricity. It is stated that the incoming line was found to be bare up to certain point. Obviously the taping of the said line was removed to make it bare. The incoming line is taped to prevent the same from being short circulated by connecting wires to it. If the incoming wire is short circuited it adversely affects the recording the consumption of electricity and the load being availed of by the consumer. The evidence of sign of some external burnt was found on the bare conductor. It is alleged that on account of this it was obvious that attempt was made in the past first to bare the conductor by removing the tape and then to short circuit the same by connecting it with an external wire, which is an artificial device to do so. It is further stated that both ends of the wire attached to the wooden poles is connected to the incoming and outgoing wires of the CTPT, which results in much less recording of units. The out coming jumpers in eastern phase was found bare after 21/2 feet. This also was an evidence that the tape therefrom was removed for short circuiting. The next evidence was that the lower portion of the L conductors was found open up to a length of 1/2 inch, which was also done by the petitioner for the same purpose. The respondent-Board was, therefore, justified in disconnecting the supply of electricity in the premises of the petitioner and raising a supplementary bill for loss sustained by the Board. 4. I have heard at length Mr. S. K. Kapoor, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. L. K. Bajala, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavits the questions fall for consideration are; (i) whether the respondent Board was justified in disconnecting the supply of electricity on the ground of detention of theft and pilferage of electricity by the consumer; (ii) whether the Board was justified in raising a supplementary bill without giving any notice to the petitioner. 6. 6. So far the first question is concerned, there is no need to discuss any further for the reason that a similar question came for consideration before the Apex Court, In the case of Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. V/s. A. P. State Electricity Board, (1998) 4 SCC 470 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1715 ) where their Lordships following the earlier decision of the M. P. Electricity Board V/s. Harsh Wood Products, (1996) 4 SCC 522 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2258 ) has held that when power theft was found by the officials of the Board then immediate disconnection of supply was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of natural justice would not apply. 7. Moreover, in the case of Shiv Shambhu Hard Coke V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1999) 2 Pat LJR 665 : ( AIR 2000 Pat 76 ) a Bench of this Court, while considering a similar question regarding disconnection of electric supply under clause 16.9 of the Tariff, has held that when the consumer consumed electricity beyond the sanctioned load, it will amount to theft of electricity and for that reason disconnection of electric supply by the Board without notice to the consumer cannot be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of natural justice does not apply. 8. Having regard to the law discussed hereinabove. I am also of the view that when strong evidence of theft and/or pilferage of electricity is found by the Board during inspection and on that account the Board disconnected the electricity, then principle of natural justice is not required to be followed and no notice is to be served on the consumer before the disconnection of supply of electricity. 9. The next question then falls for consideration is whether the action of the Board in raising a compensatory bill of Rs. 40,39,50,747.00 on the basis of inspection report without giving any notice to show cause to the petitioner is justified. Admittedly, on the basis of the inspection report the supply of electricity was disconnected and FIR was lodged by the Board against the petitioner. 40,39,50,747.00 on the basis of inspection report without giving any notice to show cause to the petitioner is justified. Admittedly, on the basis of the inspection report the supply of electricity was disconnected and FIR was lodged by the Board against the petitioner. It is also not disputed that before raising the bill the respondent Board neither served a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner nor called upon it to show cause as to why the petitioner should not compensate the loss sustained by the Board on account of the alleged theft of electricity as per the inspection report. 10. It appears that before 13-1-2000 earlier on 4-12-99 inspection was made by the authorities of the Board and several irregularities alteration were reported in the inspection report. It is stated in para 33 of the writ petition that during the process of inspection on 4-12-99 several documents were sought by the respondent No. 1 which were duly furnished by the petitioner on the same date to the Inspecting Team. Again on 17th December, 20th December and 31st December, 1999 the respondents-authorities asked the petitioner to provide diverse figure which was duly furnished by the petitioner. These facts have not been denied by the respondent-Board in their counter-affidavit. In spite of that the outcome of the inspection was not communicated to the petitioner and again the inspection was carried out on 13-1-2000 and the officials of the Board collected evidence and other materials which were subjective of theft and pilferage of electricity by the petitioner. However, without giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain their conduct stand, the impugned bill has been raised by the respondent-Board. This, in my view, does not appear to be justified. Before raising compensatory bill of such huge amount on the allegation of theft of electricity, which is a grievous charge, at least one opportunity should be given to the consumer as to why they should not be saddled with additional liability in order to meet the losses suffered by the Board. 11. In the case of M/s. Venky Steels (P.) Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B., (1999) 3 Pat LJR 473 a Bench of this Court considering a similar question, held as under :- "The charge of theft of electricity is a grievous charge and it has highly stringent consequences. 11. In the case of M/s. Venky Steels (P.) Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B., (1999) 3 Pat LJR 473 a Bench of this Court considering a similar question, held as under :- "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 lessen penalty then the one provided under clause 16.9 of the tariff, if is also undesirable 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 of 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.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 under clause 16.9 of the tariff." 12. A similar view has been taken by me also in the case of Laxmi Flour Mills V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board (CWJC No. 2107/99(R) decided on 30-9-99). 13. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, before issuing the impugned bill of Rs. A similar view has been taken by me also in the case of Laxmi Flour Mills V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board (CWJC No. 2107/99(R) decided on 30-9-99). 13. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, before issuing the impugned bill of Rs. 40,39,50,747.00 on the basis of inspection report, the respondent Board should have given notice to show cause to the petitioner as to why it should not be saddled with the liability of payment of the aforesaid amount on account of alleged pilferage/theft of electricity. The impugned bill is, therefore, quashed giving liberty to the respondent-Board to raise a fresh bill after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners, instead of writing for show cause notice, shall file a detailed objection, representation to the inspection report before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Singhbhum Area, Jamshedpur within two weeks from today. On receipt of the representation the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer shall consider the representation and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 14. Mr. Kapoor, learned Sr. counsel, has made his submission on the question of interim relief by way of restoration of supply of electricity so long the representation of the petitioner is not disposed of by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. Learned counsel submitted that if the supply of electricity is not restored in the factory premises the petitioner shall suffer serious loss and irreparable injury. Learned counsel submitted that there are about 1150 employees working in the factory of the petitioner and the petitioner will have no other option but to start retrenching them after the total shut down of the factory. 15. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bajla, learned counsel for the Board, I am of the opinion that for the end of justice it would be proper for the Board to restore the supply of electricity in the event the petitioner deposit with the Board a sum of Rs. 5.00 crore in cash and bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 15.00 crore from any nationalised bank. Accordingly I direct the respondent-Board to restore the supply of electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of such deposit. 5.00 crore in cash and bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 15.00 crore from any nationalised bank. Accordingly I direct the respondent-Board to restore the supply of electricity in the factory premises of the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of such deposit. It is needless to say that in the event any liability of the petitioner is found for payment of additional amount then the same shall be adjusted out of the amount deposited by the petitioner and in the event the petitioner is not found liable to pay any additional amount to the Board then the amount deposited in cash as well as bank guarantee shall be refunded to the petitioner.Order accordingly.