JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. — The petitioner M/s. Gini Vitreous Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director has approached this Court by the present writ petition seeking mainly a direction to the opposite parties, i.e. the Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. (‘CESCO’ in short) and its functionaries/authorities, i.e. O.P.Nos. 2 to 4, to restore power supply to its factory at Tangiapada in the district of Khurda, alleging the same to have been disrupted by the opposite parties illegally and arbitrarily, apart from seeking the incidental relief of quashing Annexure-3, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner alongwith the penal electric charges, and the orders passed by the opposite parties consequential to Annexure-3, which have prejudicially affected the petitioner and have brought the petitioner’s factory to a grinding halt. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that it is a company within the meaning of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and carries on the business of manufacturing salt glazed stoneware pipes and fittings in its factory at Tangiapada in the district of Khurda. It is a consumer of electricity, the supply being given to its factory in August, 1992 categorising it as a Medium Industry. The petitioner was all through paying the electricity charges regularly and diligently on the basis of the bills raised by O.P.No. 2, the Executive Engineer (Elect.) Khurda Electrical Division. It is alleged that while the petitioner was so paying the energy bills, O.P.No. 3. the Team Leader of Meter Relay Testing Squad (‘MRT Squad’ in short), Bhubaneswar along with the Junior Engineer (Elect.), Section No. II, Khurda, with some ulterior motive on 4.1.2001 made certain inspection of the electric meter and its associated equipments installed in the petitioner’s factory in the absence of any authorised representative of the petitioner and basing upon their aforesaid inspection, O.P.No. 2 served a notice on the petitioner on 6.1.2001, vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition, asking the peti¬tioner to show cause within seven days of the notice as to why the power supply to its factory would not be disconnected and the petitioner should not pay a penalty of Rs. 10,34,512/- for the alleged unauthorised/dishonest abstraction of power and tampering with the meter by it. 10,34,512/- for the alleged unauthorised/dishonest abstraction of power and tampering with the meter by it. On 12.1.2001 the petitioner submitted a preliminary reply, vide Annexure-4, to the show cause notice (Annexure-3) and while denying the allegations of unauthorised/dishonest abstraction of power and tampering with the meter, etc. requested the opposite parties for being supplied with a copy of the alleged inspection report of the MRT Squad dated 4.1.2001 referred to in the show cause notice (Annexure-3) for giving an effective reply to the show cause notice, with a further request not to take any punitive measures against it as indicated in the said annexure. On receipt of Annexure-4, O.P.No. 2 by his letter dated 16.1.2001 (Annexure-5) furnished a copy of the aforesaid MRT Squad report dated 4.1.2001 as per Annexure-6 and the petitioner submitted its additional reply on 20.1.2001 vide Annexure-7, inter alia, disputing the MRT Squad report dated 4.1.2001 and refuting the genuineness of the MRT Squad report while requesting for being supplied with a genuine copy of the said report. 3. In the meanwhile, on 15.1.2001 the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 1 of 2001 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.), Khurda, for a decree of injunction against the O.Ps. as regards disconnection of power supply to its factory. Along with the plaint, the petitioner also filed an application for ad interim injunction. The prayer for ad interim injunction was refused by the Civil Judge (J.D.), against which the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision before the Addl. District Judge, Khurda and the said revisional Court by order dated 23.1.2001 directed both the sides to maintain status quo in regard to the power supply. However, the revisional Court while finally disposing of the revision on 23.2.2001, vacated the direction to maintain status quo, whereafter the opposite parties with undue haste disconnected the power supply to the petitioner’s factory on 24.2.2001. 4. Thereafter the petitioner moved this Court in a writ petition being O.J.C.No. 2310 of 2001 challenging the order dated 23.2.2001 of the Addl. District Judge, Khurda, which was later on converted into a Civil Revision. This Court disposed of the said Civil Revision on 3.3.2001 with the observation that it would be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of power supply to its factory. District Judge, Khurda, which was later on converted into a Civil Revision. This Court disposed of the said Civil Revision on 3.3.2001 with the observation that it would be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition seeking mandatory injunction for restoration of power supply to its factory. The petitioner, pursuant to the said observation of this Court, filed such a petition, but the same was rejected by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Khurda, vide his order dated 22.3.2001, vide Annexure-21. 5. In the present writ petition, this Court passed an interim direction on 11.4.2001 that without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, if a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- was depos¬ited by the petitioner, electricity supply to its factory would be restored within twenty-four hours of such deposit. Against the aforesaid interim direction, the petitioner preferred an A.H.O. but a Division Bench of this Court hearing the A.H.O. declined to entertain the same. 6. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit have submitted that on 4.1.2001 the MRT Squad of CESCO headed by a Divisional Manager/Team Leader had inspected the meter, etc. installed in the factory premises of the petitioner with proper notice to the petitioner and found various irregularities and tampering of the meter and prepared a detailed report of inspection in presence of the Managing Director of the petitioner on the spot itself on which signatures of the Managing Director were also obtained. It is also submitted that similar act of tampering with the meter in the petitioner’s factory premises was also detected on earlier inspection made by the O.Ps. on 8.10.1999. Basing on the report of the MRT Squad dated 4.1.2001, O.P.No. 2 issued the show cause notice vide Annexure-3 along with a penal bill amounting to Rs. 10,34,512/- to which the petitioner submitted its preliminary reply and an additional reply vide Annexures- 4 and 7 respectively. O.P.No. 2 found that the replies submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice were not satisfactory and by order dated 23.1.2001 directed disconnection of the power supply to the petitioner’s factory and accordingly power supply was disconnected at 12.15 p.m. on the same day, i.e. 23.1.2001. O.P.No. 2 found that the replies submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice were not satisfactory and by order dated 23.1.2001 directed disconnection of the power supply to the petitioner’s factory and accordingly power supply was disconnected at 12.15 p.m. on the same day, i.e. 23.1.2001. The opposite parties in their counter affidavit have further stated that since the petitioner’s connected load was more than 10 K.Ws., i.e., 88 K.Ws., as per Clause 91 (1) of the Orissa Elec¬tricity Regulatory Commission Distribution (Conditions of Supply) Code, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Supply Code”), the peti¬tioner was required to pay the bill amount of Rs. 10,34,512/- inclusive of penalty in full before raising any dispute. Accord¬ing to the O.Ps. there is no question of violation of any provi¬sions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 or the O.E.R.C. (Con¬sumers’ Right to Information and Standard of Performance) Regula¬tions, 1998. Clause 51 of the Supply Code empowers the O.Ps. to enter into the premises of a consumer by informing it with a view to put a check on unauthorised addition or alteration of equip¬ments or theft and misappropriation of energy and there was no violation of any provision of law in inspecting electric meter and its associated equipments installed in the petitioner’s factory. 7. It is then submitted that the Supply Agreement as per Annexure-1 entered into between the petitioner and the CESCO was terminated as per the provisions of Clauses 17 and 96 of the Supply Code on 24.4.2001 as the power supply remained disconnect¬ed to the factory of the petitioner for more than two months for non-payment of dues and as no effective setps were taken by the consumer to remove the cause of disconnection. For reconnection of power supply and raising a dispute, the petitioner was first required to deposit the entire bill amount of Rs. 10,34,512/- its connected load being more than 10 KWs., which the petitioner did not prefer to do. Further, although this Court by order dated 11.4.2001 in the present writ petition gave an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in which event the opposite parties were directed to restore the power supply within 24 hours, the petitioner chose to prefer A.H.O. No. 51/2001 challenging the said order dated 11.4.2001 in vain. Further, although this Court by order dated 11.4.2001 in the present writ petition gave an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- in which event the opposite parties were directed to restore the power supply within 24 hours, the petitioner chose to prefer A.H.O. No. 51/2001 challenging the said order dated 11.4.2001 in vain. Even after refusal by the Division Bench to interfere with the order dated 11.4.2001, the petitioner did not comply with the said order which led to termination of the Supply Agreement (Annexure-1). 8. On going through the facts, one thing is clear from Annexure-6, which is a copy of the report dated 4.1.2001 of the M.R.T. Squad, that the last inspection of the meter in the peti¬tioner’s factory was conducted on 8.10.1999. In the aforesaid report (Annexure-6), under the heading ‘Observations’, it is stated thus : “Observations - (1) Standard T.P.box not installed as advised during the last test (2) Consumer has got its own transformer (250 KVA) (3) Existing seals : Meter Box - Paper Seal by JE Incoming/CT/PT/09 on - Paper seal by JE 229139 (Plastic seal) MRT seals on MTC - 187034 green plastic seal 039661 paper seal xxx xxx xxx” In the remarks column of the said report, it is stated : “(1) Due to non-standard T.P.box and accessibility to the CT chamber, the consumer is regularly tampering with the CTs. The same had also been reported during last test on 8.10.99 and it had been advised to change the meter box with a standard TP box and HT metering to be done. But though the metering unit and meter has been drawn since long it has not been installed. (2) ... ... ... (3) In view of this, to stop further pilferage of energy and loss of revenue, immediate steps to be taken to install the HT metering unit and MRT should be informed to install the meter.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In Annexure-6, reference is made to the earlier testing of the meter done on 8.10.1999, and similar irregularity/illegal¬ity was noticed by the CESCO authorities. As it appears, no steps had been taken by the opposite parties from 8.10.1999 till 4.1.2001 either to install HT metering unit or for disconnection of the power supply if any irregularity/illegality was noticed to have been committed by the petitioner. As it appears, no steps had been taken by the opposite parties from 8.10.1999 till 4.1.2001 either to install HT metering unit or for disconnection of the power supply if any irregularity/illegality was noticed to have been committed by the petitioner. Under column 3 of the heading ‘Observations’, it is stated that the meter box, incom¬ing/CT/PT and MRT seals on MTC were all intact and there was no tampering. The observation of the MRT Squad on one hand that the seals on the meter were intact and on the other hand the meter was tampered with creates grave doubts in the mind of the Court as to the veracity of the allegation of tampering with the meter. When on inspection the seals were not found either broken or tempered, it is surprising how could the opposite parties come forward with the allegation of tampering with the meter. 10. There is yet another aspect. If at all there was any tampering with the meter and the same was detected as back as 8.10.1999, there was no valid or convincing reason as to why the standard TP box was not installed even though so advised by the MRT Squad pursuant to the test conducted on 8.10.1999, since the installation of TP box was within the exclusive domain of the opposite parties. That apart, it further reveals from the report Annexure-6 that due to non-standard TP box, the C.T. chamber was accessible from outside. If that was so, the opposite parties could not have waited till 4.1.2001 thereby allowing the peti¬tioner to draw power unauthorisedly by tampering with the meter¬ing apparatus. The aforesaid report Annexure-6 further indicates that - “On opening the C.T.chamber it was found that the R-phase & B-phase C.T's. joints have been removed and twisted over the insulating tape. Thereby the R-phase & B-phase CT’s are open circuited and the meter is recording only the Y-phase CT compo¬nent; thereby exposing the installation to unsafe condition. Due to above deficiency and tampering, the meter was recording only 1/3rd of actual consumption. Today the joints were made properly and currents in the secondary side measured again.” The Current Transformer (CT) joints if removed and twisted over the insulating tape, one will wonder how the seal on the C.T.chamber was intact without being tampered with or removed, which was removed by the MRT Squad only on 4.1.2001. Today the joints were made properly and currents in the secondary side measured again.” The Current Transformer (CT) joints if removed and twisted over the insulating tape, one will wonder how the seal on the C.T.chamber was intact without being tampered with or removed, which was removed by the MRT Squad only on 4.1.2001. It is curious to note that during the last test conducted on 8.10.1999, even though it was advised to install a standard TP box, the same had not been done till 4.1.2001, when the MRT Squad visited the petitioner’s factory for the second time and found that even if the seals on the C.T. chamber were intact, on opening the same it was found that the joints of R-phase and B-phase C.T. were removed and twisted over the insulating tape, thereby exposing the installation to unsafe condition. Another feature which reveals from the remarks column of the report Annexure-6 is that even though the metering unit and the meter had been drawn since long, the same had not been installed by the opposite parties. Only after the inspection made on 4.1.2001, a show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 6.1.2001 alongwith a penal bill raised for Rs. 10,34,512/- to which the petitioner submitted a preliminary reply on 12.1.2001 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice and seeking a copy of the MRT Squad report. On receipt of the MRT Squad report, the petitioner filed its reply dated 20.1.2001 and the same was rejected on 23.1.2001 by O.P.No. 2 and power supply to the petitioner’s factory was dis¬connected on and from 24.2.2001 on vacation of the order of status quo passed by the Addl. Dist. Judge, Khurda. 11. The allegation of the opposite parties is that there was unauthorised drawal/abstraction of energy by the petitioner-company for which recourse to Clause 105 (2) of the Supply Code has been taken and accordingly show cause notice vide Annexure-3 was issued and demand was raised towards penal energy charges of Rs. 10,34,512/- which according to the counsel for the opposite parties is legal and correct and the same cannot be interfered with in this writ petition because of availability of alternative remedy in shape of Complaint Handling Procedure, which was ap¬proved by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘OERC’ in short). 10,34,512/- which according to the counsel for the opposite parties is legal and correct and the same cannot be interfered with in this writ petition because of availability of alternative remedy in shape of Complaint Handling Procedure, which was ap¬proved by the Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission (‘OERC’ in short). In this regard it would be worthwhile to look into the relevant provisions made in Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as well as Clause 105 (2) of the Supply Code. Section 26 (6) of the I.E.Act, 1910 provides - “Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer of the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclu¬sive proof of such amount or quantity : Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this Sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days’ notice of his inten¬tion so to do.” Clause 105 (2) of the Supply Code provides - “The period of unauthorised use shall be determined by the engineer as one year prior to the date of detection or from the date of initial supply if the initial date of supply is less than one year from the date of detection. If the consumer pro¬vides evidence to the contrary, the period may be varied accord¬ing to such evidence. The engineer may levy penal charges in addition to the normal charges for aforesaid period of unauthorised use. Where addition of the unauthorised installation or sale or diversion would result in a reclassification according to this Code, the whole of the power drawn shall be deemed to have been drawn in the reclassified category. The consumer shall also be required to execute a fresh agreement under the reclassi¬fied category.” 12. Where addition of the unauthorised installation or sale or diversion would result in a reclassification according to this Code, the whole of the power drawn shall be deemed to have been drawn in the reclassified category. The consumer shall also be required to execute a fresh agreement under the reclassi¬fied category.” 12. A Division Bench of this Court in a recent decision of Sri Harishankar Giri v. Central Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd.* 95 (2003) CLT 65, dealt with the aforesaid provi¬sions and held : “It is too well settled that the provisions contained in the Code shall have to be read harmoniously with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act. It is again to be noticed that in case of defective meter the Electrical Inspector shall have overall jurisdiction to determine if such defect has occurred due to negligence/interference by the consumer or the licensee. In the event there is a dispute between the licensee and/or the consumer with regard to the unauthorised drawal/ab¬straction of energy, the Electrical Inspector would seige juris¬diction.......” xxx xxx xxx Thus as per the aforesaid provision, the Electrical Inspector who has been authorised by the Act shall not impose penalty for a period beyond six months. But in Rule 105 of the Code such power has been vested on an Engineer to impose penalty for a period of one year from the date of detection which is repugnant to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 105 appears to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and thus shall be inoperative.” In the aforesaid decision the Division Bench relied upon the interpretation of the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the I.E.Act, 1910 made by the Apex Court in the case of Belwal Spin¬ning Mills Ltd. v. U.P.State Electricity Board, AIR 1997 SC 2793 and came to the conclusion that : “Therefore, we are of the firm opinion on a harmonious construction of Rule 105 of the Code and the provisions of Sec¬tion 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act that the licensee is not empowered to impose penalty beyond six months inasmuch as legislature did not permit them to realise any amount for unauthorised abstraction beyond six months, unless proof of fraud is established preceding statutory period of six months.” 13. In the case at hand, the dispute also relates to tam¬pering with the metering unit as well as the functioning of the meter. Although this was detected initially on 8.10.1999, the same was allowed to continue till 4.1.2001, when the next inspec¬tion was done, and even on that date, the seals were intact and the metering unit was found to be in order. So, it was unusual on the part of the opposite parties not to take any step for instal¬lation of a standard TP box, even if defects were found with the metering units and alleged theft of power was noticed as back as 8.10.1999. But one thing may be kept in mind that during the latter inspection on 4.1.2001, the seals of the meter box were found intact. There is no plausible explanation by the opposite parties in this regard and there is no material before this Court to come to a safe conclusion that the petitioner was indulged in tampering with the meter and was involved in the theft of electricity. There is nothing to show prima facie that the peti¬tioner was in fact indulged in any unauthorised or dishonest drawal/abstraction of power and there is no proof of fraud estab¬lished preceding the statutory period of six months. 14. An objection has been raised by the opposite parties that the alternative statutory remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner by resorting to the provision regarding Complaint Handling Procedure. A similar objection has been taken care of in Harishankar Giri’s case (supra) and it was held thus : “The Complaint Handling Procedure which is said to have been effective from 10th January, 2001 cannot take away the statutory right available to either party under Sec. 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act. The provisions of the said Act en¬shrines the Electrical Inspector to handle such complaint. In such event the petitioners are not bound to resort to the provi¬sions of Complaint Handling Procedure........” 15. On a cumulative assessment of the entire facts and looking into the law decided by this Court in Harishankar Giri’s case (supra). The provisions of the said Act en¬shrines the Electrical Inspector to handle such complaint. In such event the petitioners are not bound to resort to the provi¬sions of Complaint Handling Procedure........” 15. On a cumulative assessment of the entire facts and looking into the law decided by this Court in Harishankar Giri’s case (supra). I am of the opinion that recourse taken by the opposite parties to Clause 105 (2) of the Supply Code in issuing Annexure-3 cannot be said to be legal and valid for the reasons stated above for which imposition of penal charges in terms of the said Annexure-3 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to raise the energy bill for the period in question on the basis of actual consumption of energy and serve the same on the petitioner within a period of ten days hence. On payment of the aforesaid energy charges, the opposite parties shall restore power supply to the petitioner’s factory by entering into a fresh supply agreement and rectifying the defect, if any, in the meter¬ing unit. This exercise shall be completed within ten days of the payment of the energy charges by the petitioner. 16. During the course of hearing, I called upon the Execu¬tive Engineer (Technical), CESCO, Khurda Electrical Division, Khurda, to show cause as to why appropriate action shall not be taken against him for terminating the Supply Agreement (Annexure-1) during the pendency of the writ petition. Pursuant to such direction, Shri D.K.Pati, Executive-Engineer (Technical) filed the show cause reply and the same was directed to be considered at the final disposal of the writ petition. But in view of the findings recorded above, I am not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. The same is accordingly closed. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the directions and observations made above. No cost. Petition allowed.