Judgement ORDER :- In both these petitions prayer made is exactly similar and identical and the cause of action for filing petitions are also identical. That apart, as common questions are involved they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners in both these petitions have claimed the following reliefs :- "In the aforesaid circumstances it is respectfully submitted that a mandate be issued to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to re-connect the electric connection severed by them for no fault of the petitioner-company which has suffered loss of crores of rupees, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to compensate the petitioner-company with the loss they have suffered, and all the bills issued after 1-10-1999 be quashed." 3. Facts giving arise to filing of the petitions are that in the night intervening 30th September, 1999 and 1st October, 1999 a sudden check was carried by a team of official of the M.P. State Electricity Board in the premises of the petitioners who are H. T. consumers and have their establishment situated in Banmore, District-Morena. On the basis of the inspection conducted a panchnama was prepared which is filed as Annexure P/4 in W.P. No. 354/2003. A common panchnama has been prepared for both the cases. The allegations are that in the night intervening 30th September, 1999 and 1st October, 1999 the vigilance team had checked the connections in the petitioner's establishment and found that they were extracting electrical energy by hooking 33 KV line laid for providing the HT connection of IRS. Industries Pvt. Ltd. Banmore, (petitioner in W.P. No. 354/03) before the metering equipment. They had isolated the metered supply given to M/s. B. R. Associates Ltd. (petitioner in W.P. No. 368/2003) at their S/S through independent feeder and thereafter connected this illegal hooked supply to the S/S through cable laid temporarily from the concern of M/s. I.R.S. Industries. Thus, B. R. Associates Pvt. Ltd. by passed the meter restricting the recovery of energy consumption. In both these factories of the petitioners production was in progress and a case of theft of electricity was found against the petitioners and it is said that they were committing malpractice. Accordingly, the panchnama was prepared and it was found that the petitioners have directly take supply from 33 K. V. feeder of the Board by certain illegal methods. In both these factories of the petitioners production was in progress and a case of theft of electricity was found against the petitioners and it is said that they were committing malpractice. Accordingly, the panchnama was prepared and it was found that the petitioners have directly take supply from 33 K. V. feeder of the Board by certain illegal methods. By hooking through the cable made from 33 KV line before the metering equipment and thereby resulting in restriction in recording of energy consumption. It is alleged that they had committed theft of electricity. An first Information Report was lodged and by calculating capacity pilfered from the date of connection up to the date of check, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. As the petitioner I. R. Industries Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the supplementary bill raised after imposing penalty was for Rs. 15/2 crores whereas in the case of petitioner M/s. B. R. Associates Pvt. Ltd. the supplementary bill amounts to Rs. 8.23 crores claimed. Petitioner submitted their reply to the show cause notice the same was not found satisfactory, the petitioners contention was rejected and thereafter they filed review application which was placed before the Central Level Review Committee. The Central Level Review Committee having rejected the application, appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the appellate Committee known as Member Level Review Committee consisting of two members of Board. The appellate Member Level Committee considered the case and thereafter rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure P/17 and directed for recovery of amount from the petitioners. The petitioners as stated hereinabove have challenged the aforesaid recovery proceedings initiated against them. Shri K. S. Shri-vastava, learned counsel, appearing for petitioners argued that the panchnama was not properly prepared. Referring to the Annexure P/4 it was submitted that it is prepared fraudulently. It is submitted by him that no case for theft is made out, no enquiry was conducted and there is no proof of electricity theft having been made. The report of Central Level Committee was not issued to the petitioners and the conclusion arrived at by the authorities is not correct. In all the submission of Shri Shrivastava learned counsel is that without a proper finding being recorded with regard to commission of theft respondents cannot take any action against the petitioner. The report of Central Level Committee was not issued to the petitioners and the conclusion arrived at by the authorities is not correct. In all the submission of Shri Shrivastava learned counsel is that without a proper finding being recorded with regard to commission of theft respondents cannot take any action against the petitioner. It was emphasized that as the panchnama is not properly prepared, no criminal case was instituted the FIR lodged was not acted upon and as no criminal case was registered and as theft of electricity was not proved, no case is made out for refusing restoration of connection to the petitioners. It was argued that the petitioners have a right to get electricity connection as the police authorities have not registered any case. During the course of hearing referring to panchnama and pointing out various discrepancies therein, it was argued by him that no case is made out and the entire action is vitiated. As far as imposition of penalty and recover of amount is concerned, it was argued by Shri Shri-vastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1949 as proper regulation have not been framed no action can be initiated. It is submitted by him that imposition for penalty is beyond the powers as contained in Section 79 of the Act, therefore, no penalty can be imposed. 4. Refuting the aforesaid and placing heavy reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. v. Bihar State Electricity Board, 2003 AIR SCW 1776, Shri N. K. Mody, learned Sr. counsel submitted that case for initiating action is made out. It has been submitted by him that the petitioners were given due opportunity of hearing, their application for review was considered by Central Level Review Committee which after considering the same rejected the claim made by the petitioner. Thereafter petitioners preferred appeal before the Appellate Board which was rejected vide Annexure P/17 referring to the report and findings of the Appellate Committee as contained in Annexure P/17 it was argued by Shri Mody, learned Senior Counsel that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. It was submitted by him that merely because no criminal case was registered that cannot be a ground for allowing the prayer made by the petitioners. It was submitted by him that merely because no criminal case was registered that cannot be a ground for allowing the prayer made by the petitioners. That apart, a preliminary objection was raised that earlier petitioners have filed writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 686/2001 in the case of M/s. I.R. Industries Pvt. Ltd and W.P. No. 815/2001 in the case of M/s. B. R. Associates Pvt. Ltd. which were withdrawn on 7-5-2002 with liberty to represent to the Board but thereafter no representation was made, accordingly it is argued that on the similar grievance fresh petition cannot be filed. As far as power to impose penalty is concerned, it was submitted by Shri Mody, learned senior counsel that in exercise of the powers conferred on the Board by Section 79 clause (j) and (k) general terms and conditions for supply of the Electricity has been formulated and according to the provisions of the aforesaid general terms and conditions provides for recovery for the energy consumed by way of illegal methods and a penal charge at the rate of 2.5 times normal tariff on the stolen energy can be imposed. It was contended that power has been exercised in accordance with the provision of law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as preliminary objection with regard to withdrawal of the earlier petition is concerned, from the records it is seen that after the earlier petition was withdrawn petitioners submitted representation Annexure P/10 on 14-12-2002 and as nothing happened thereafter they have again filed the present petitions. That being so I am not inclined to reject the petitions on this ground. 6. The main thrust of the submission made by Shri K. S. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners during the course of arguments was that there is no finding or conclusion by a competent person or Court with regard to commission of theft by the petitioners. It was his contention that as competent authorities have not taken any action on the FIR lodged and as no criminal proceedings have been initiated, findings of theft is not established and without their being any conclusion and findings recorded with regard to theft having been committed by the petitioners all subsequent action with regard to imposition of penalty and recovery of amount is unsustainable. In this regard it would be relevant to refer to legal position which now stands settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. (2003 AIR SCW 1776) (supra). 7. After considering the various questions involved in identical situation it has been held that the scope of judicial review on the findings recorded by the Chief Engineer is very limited and this Court cannot reappreciate the matter and come to a different conclusions. In the present case also the grievance of the petitioners has to be considered in the back-drop of the observation made by the Supreme Court and the law laid down in the aforesaid case. 8. Answer to the first contention of Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel that theft is not proved and criminal case has not been registered is available in para 13 of the judgment of Supreme Court, merely because no criminal case is registered, it has been held in the aforesaid case that the trial of accused in the criminal case will have no bearing in the matter of assessment to be made in accordance with the tariff of the value of the energy, dishonestly consumed. That being so the argument that criminal action was not taken and therefore theft is not proved has to be rejected. 9. The next submission made by the learned counsel that there is no conclusive proof of theft is incorrect. Annexure P/6 show cause was issued to the petitioners, they submitted their reply. The matter was considered by the Central Level Review Committee and the record indicates that the Central Level Review Committee consisting of Executive Director (O and M), Chief Engineer (F and A) and Chief Engineer (T and C) met before the said Committee Additional Director (V and S) presented the case of the Board and the petitioners were represented by Shri I. C. Jindal (Director) and Shri A. K. Bharadwaj, in both the cases arguments at length have been heard and thereafter finding have been recorded by the Central Level Committee and the conclusion of the Central Level Committee are reproduced in para 10 of the order passed by the Appellate Committee which reads as under - "10. Noted that the Central Level Committee therefore came to the conclusion that: (i) The consumer have committed theft of electricity, (ii) In respect of M/s. IRS Industries, since the consumer has two furnaces having capacity of 2, 5 MT each, the consumption pattern of 5,76,000 unit per month per furnace having capacity 2.5 MT should be taken to bill this consumer. The period of billing for both the furnaces shall be one year. (iii) In respect of M/s. B. R. Associates, the consumer had two furnaces having capacity of 2.5 Mt. each. However, at the time only one furnace could come into operation, therefore, this consumer be billed for 5,76,000 unit per month for the period of-one year." 10. Thereafter the petitioners again filed appeal vide Annexure P/14 before the Member Level Committee consisting of two members of the Board. The appellate Committee heard the petitioners' representatives their arguments were considered and after referring to the findings recorded by the Central Level Committee in para 11 of Annexure P/17 it is observed that the representatives of the petitioners presented their case on 27-5-2000 the appellants were given chance to go through the records of the Board which were produced before the committee, they submitted their pleadings and after recording their submission considered the provisions of Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Supply Act and after discussing the same from para 13 onwards up to para 22 a finding has been recorded that the petitioners have committed theft, malpractice and have dishonestly abstracted the electrical energy therefore they have committed misconduct and the appeal has been rejected. From the aforesaid it is clear that not only the Central Level Committee but the Member Level Committee which is appellate authority have also considered the submission of the petitioners in details and recorded a detailed finding as it evident from Annexure P/17 and thereafter held that petitioners have committed theft. Having held that theft and malpractice has been proved further records have been considered and assessment of electrical energy and imposition of penalty have been upheld. 11. Having held that theft and malpractice has been proved further records have been considered and assessment of electrical energy and imposition of penalty have been upheld. 11. The aforesaid detailed analysis of the matter by two Committees cannot be reviewed by this Court as a Appellate Forum and the reasons thereof substituted by decision of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in the back drop of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in the case of J.M.D. Alloys Ltd. (2003 AIR SCW 1776) (supra). That being so this Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review and substitute the decision of the Central Level Review Committee and Member Level Appellate Committee, that being the legal position, the contention of the petitioners that the decision of the Committees are not proper or there is no proof with regard to theft or conclusion with regard to theft having been committed cannot be looked into in these proceedings. 12. Accordingly, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. Last argument was that the power of imposing penalty is not available and action taken is not sustainable as there is no power to frame such regulations. In that regard Section 79(j) and (k) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 provides as under :- (j) Principles governing the supply of electricity by the Board to person other than licensees under Section 49; (k) any other matter arising out of the Board's functions under this Act for which it is necessary or expedient to make regulations; 13. The aforesaid Clause give ample power to the Board to law down the principles and tariff rate and conditions governing supply of electricity by the Board to its consumer and in pursuance thereof the general conditions for supply of electricity have been formulated and in the present case action has been taken in accordance with the provisions of clause 31(G) of the aforesaid condition that being so the submission in this regard is also unsustainable. 14. Considering the totality of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, I find no ground on the basis of which interference can be made in the present petition in exercise of limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. 14. Considering the totality of the facts and discussion made hereinabove, I find no ground on the basis of which interference can be made in the present petition in exercise of limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. Accordingly, both the petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs.