Judgment : M. S. MITTAL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD ,learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dilep Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Board. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the inspection report of the Officers of the respondents-Board dated 3-6-2005 whereby it has been reported that one plastic seal bit has been broken in the secondary Terminal Box of the metering unit installed outside the campus of the petitioners factory premises and further for direction upon the respondents not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the aforementioned inspection report and further to restrain the respondents to disconnect the electrical connection of the petitioner on the basis of said inspection report and not to raise any penal bill on the basis of First Information Report. ( 3 ) THE petitioner, a Steel Factory, was sanctioned a load of 2400 KVA by the respondents-Board which was subsequently enhanced to 3000 KVA. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that every month a team of Officers of the Board consisting of 6-7 senior officers used to come to take meter reading in the petitioners premises. The last reading was taken by the team on 31-5-2005. On 3rd June, 2005 in the afternoon a team of officers of the Electricity Board made a surprise inspection in the premises of the petitioner and on inspection it was found that all the seal bits were broken. In the middle portion of the front cover of the secondary Terminal Box Cover, the two holes were found without any nuts and bolts. These holes were used for inserting sealing wire on which one unsigned plastic seal bit was found hanging without being properly inserted in the seal bit. On the basis of the said inspection, a report was prepared and on the next day i. e. 4-6-2005, F. I. R. was lodged with the Mandu Police Station, hazaribagh alleging, inter alia, that because of the theft of electricity the Board has sustained a loss of Rs. 1,93,00000/- (Rupees one crore ninety-three lacs) within three days. The F. I. R. was registered as Mandu (Kuju) P. S. Case No. 226 of 2005. ( 4 ) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating, inter alia, that a show cause has been issued calling upon the. 1,93,00000/- (Rupees one crore ninety-three lacs) within three days. The F. I. R. was registered as Mandu (Kuju) P. S. Case No. 226 of 2005. ( 4 ) A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating, inter alia, that a show cause has been issued calling upon the. petitioner to show cause as to why bill under Clause 16. 9 be not raised. ( 5 ) IN the background of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the instant writ petition is premature. On the basis of the inspection report, First Information has been lodged alleging theft of electricity, but no bill has been raised till date under Clause 169 of the Tariff. The impugned inspection report is the basis of the F. I. R. lodged by the Board and therefore, question of quashing the inspection report does not arise inasmuch as the said report is a piece of evidence in support of the allegation of theft of electricity by breaking open the seals, etc. Moreover, quashing of inspection report at this stage will amount to quashing of F. I. R. In the facts and circumstance of the case, this writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .