Girish Chandra Gupta ( 1 ) THE undisputed fact of the case is that the petitioner has been a consumer of electricity for last 30 years without any blemish. By a letter dated 10th November, 2003, Annexure 'p-2', he informed the respondent no. 3 the Station Superintendent of the West Bengal State Electricity Board that something was wrong with his meter which he had noticed on previous one or two days. The Station Superintendent was requested to inspect the meter and to take appropriate step so that the meter worked properly. On 14th November, 2003 the respondent No. 3 inspected the meter and recorded in the meter card "no display" under his signature. The respondent No. 3 thereafter continued to issue bills to the petitioner on an average basis. For the month of June, 2004, the petitioner was billed for 750 average units, for the month of July, 2004 no consumption was shown, for the month of August, 2004 he was billed for 1000 units, for the month of September, 2004 he was again billed for 1000 units. Except for the bill of September, 2004, all earlier bills were duly paid by the petitioner. On 3rd November, 2004 in the absence of the petitioner and without any notice to him the respondent No. 3 disconnected supply of electricity. Alleging inter alia that the aforesaid act of disconnection was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional the present writ petition was filed. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 3 has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents wherein following justification is to be found for disconnection of the supply of electricity. "on 3rd November, 2004 at about 3 P. M. the Industrial meter/service connection of the consumer was inspected by the inspecting team of the respondents along with the Police personnel. During inspection it was detected by the said Team that the 3 Phase State Meter at the premises was Tampered by damaging of the portion of the meter. Immediately the service connection was disconnected and FIR was lodged by the Assistant Engineer on the same day before the concerned Police Station being P/s case No. 175/04 dated 3rd november, 2004. The damaged meter was seized and was deposited at the concern Police Station. On 5th November, 2004 the assessment made by the under signed for pilferage of energy of Rs. The damaged meter was seized and was deposited at the concern Police Station. On 5th November, 2004 the assessment made by the under signed for pilferage of energy of Rs. 1,31,533/-along with other charges as per law under Section 126 of the Electricity act 2003 was sent to the Consumer vide Memo No. NBG/fi04/4a/ 1703 dated 5th November, 2004 for making payment for reconnection of his service connection. ( 3 ) THE FIR lodged by the respondent No. 3 shows that during a period of 20 minutes that is to say between 15. 05 hours and 15. 25 hours on 3rd November, 2004 after an inspection supply of electricity was disconnected; the meter was removed; seized; packed and labeled and the petitioner was charged under Section 135 (1) (b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The allegation of theft was made on the basis that "on visual inspection, 'ultrasonic' seals on side of meter found tampered. Also 'void' mark noticed on plastic sticker seal on sides of meter. " ( 4 ) ON 9th June, 2005 the matter was taken up for hearing when the respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit to give more particulars as to what did they mean by alleging in the first information report that the 'meter found tampered and also void mark noticed". How was the meter tampered and what did the void mark mean? An affidavit dated 28th june, 2005 was thereafter affirmed by Shri Satyabrata Ghosh on behalf of the respondents. The particulars furnished by Shri Ghosh are as follows :-"the plastic sticker seal is manufactured in such a way that as soon as the same is removed from the meter body the word Void' will appear on the said seal. It is pertinent to mention here that the word 'void' is not visible when the manufacturer fixed the same on the body of the meter. The experts manufacture these types of seals only to prevent the erring consumers from interfering with the proper functioning of the meter. This mechanism of the plastic sticker seal is unknown to the consumers. Now-a-days due to presence of these types of specially prepared seals the authorities can easily detect the tampering of the seals and interference with the proper functioning of the meter. Similarly during inspection the said team also noticed the word Void' on the plastic seals. This mechanism of the plastic sticker seal is unknown to the consumers. Now-a-days due to presence of these types of specially prepared seals the authorities can easily detect the tampering of the seals and interference with the proper functioning of the meter. Similarly during inspection the said team also noticed the word Void' on the plastic seals. It indicates the plastic sticker seals have been removed and those were again fixed on the body of the meter. I have already stated that the word Void' is not visible on the plastic sticker seals unless those are removed from the body of the meter. The meter is tampered only when a consumer use the electricity unauthorisedly. In view of the same and on noticing the condition of the meter the visiting officials came to the conclusion that there was pilferage of electricity by the petitioner. " ( 5 ) THE question to be determined by this Court is whether "the respondents acted arbitrarily in disconnecting the supply of electricity"? In paragraph 7 of his affidavit Shri Satyabrata Ghosh has stated on oath that a meter is tampered only when a consumer uses electricity unauthorisedly. The case against the writ petitioner is that he has tampered with the meter and has abstracted energy unauthorisedly. The question naturally arises "when did he tamper the meter if at all ?" Admittedly since 14th November, 2003 the meter was non-functional and was not showing any consumption. The petitioner has thereafter been continuously billed for consumption of electricity on an average basis as noticed earlier. Therefore the question of tampering with the meter during the period between 14th November, 2003 and 3rd November, 2004 could not have arisen. ( 6 ) THE alleged tampering in that event must have been committed prior to 14th November, 2003. There is evidence on record to show that by a letter dated 10th November, 2003 the petitioner himself informed the respondent No. 3 that his meter was not functioning properly. Consequent to such information the respondent No. 3 visited the factory premises of the petitioner on 14th November, 2003 and inspected the meter and thereafter recorded his remarks in the meter card to the effect that 'no display'. The remarks recorded by the respondent No. 3 cannot be presumed to have been written by him without inspecting the meter. Consequent to such information the respondent No. 3 visited the factory premises of the petitioner on 14th November, 2003 and inspected the meter and thereafter recorded his remarks in the meter card to the effect that 'no display'. The remarks recorded by the respondent No. 3 cannot be presumed to have been written by him without inspecting the meter. If he had inspected the meter, he could not have missed the word "void' because in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Shri Satyabrata Ghosh, he has stated as follows :-"the plastic sticker seal is manufactured in such a way that as soon as same is removed from the meter body the word 'void' will appear on the said seal. " ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY there is no complaint prior to 3rd November, 2004 about any such alleged act of tampering with the meter. This demolishes the case of alleged pilferage. ( 8 ) A sum of Rs. 1,44,840/-, was assessed against alleged unauthorised use of electricity as would appear from R-2 and Annexure 2 to the affidavit of the respondent No. 3. ( 9 ) THE respondents have also removed the allegedly tampered meter behind the back of the petitioner. ( 10 ) IT is interesting to note that in the FIR which is Annexure 'r-1' there is an allegation that "no local witness was ready for signature on seizure list" whereas the seizure list also a part of the Annexure 'r-1' to the selfsame affidavit shows that one Ranjit and another Milan signed the same as witnesses. ( 11 ) LET us now examine whether the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 were heeded to. ( 12 ) PRESENCE of the occupant at the place of search or any person on his behalf during search or seizure is mandatory under Sub-section 3 of section 135 of the said Act. It is not in dispute in this case that the search and seizure was conducted during the absence of the writ petitioner nor in the presence of anyone on his behalf. ( 13 ) UNDER Sub-section 5 of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondents in assessing quantum of the electricity unauthorisedly abstracted may presume that such unauthorised abstraction of electricity continued for a period of six months. We have before us the average bills raised by the Board for the months from June, 2004 to September, 2004. ( 13 ) UNDER Sub-section 5 of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the respondents in assessing quantum of the electricity unauthorisedly abstracted may presume that such unauthorised abstraction of electricity continued for a period of six months. We have before us the average bills raised by the Board for the months from June, 2004 to September, 2004. The highest bill during this period is for a sum of Rs. 3546/ -. Therefore, the assessment could have if at all in the case where theft had, in fact, taken place been for a sum of Rs. 21,000/- approximately. The assessment in this case is for Rs. 1,44,840/ -. ( 14 ) MR. Panja, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the West Bengal State Electricity Board is unable to check or prevent rampant pilferage of electricity in which complicity of some of the employees of the Board could not be ruled out and, therefore, the Board has no option but to take stringent step. The Board is certainly at liberty to take penal step against the wrong doers to stop pilferage of electricity. But for the sin of the wrong doers an innocent person cannot be punished. The punishment is meant for the sinner and not for the innocent. If innocent persons were to be punished there shall remain no justification for punishment at all. The object of penal provision is to provide a weapon to the authority so that the same can be used in its self defence. The weapon was not meant for inflicting wounds to the innocent nor for the purpose of making illegal gains. ( 15 ) THIS Court, therefore, has no manner of doubt that it is a glaring example of abuse of authority on the part of the respondents. The citizens do not have an alternative supplier of electricity. They are obliged to depend upon the respondents for supply of electricity. The respondents are State/ authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondents cooked up an untrue case; disconnected supply of electricity without sufficient reasons and held the petitioner to ransom. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons indicated above this Court is satisfied that the respondents abused their authority, acted illegally and trampled the right of the writ petitioner to survive and earn his livelihood. The petition therefore succeeds. The respondents cooked up an untrue case; disconnected supply of electricity without sufficient reasons and held the petitioner to ransom. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons indicated above this Court is satisfied that the respondents abused their authority, acted illegally and trampled the right of the writ petitioner to survive and earn his livelihood. The petition therefore succeeds. ( 17 ) THE respondents are directed forthwith to reconnect supply of electricity without insisting upon any payment whatsoever. The respondents shall install a new meter because the original meter has been removed by them and shall restore supply of electricity within 48 hours from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to claim compensation for damages if any for wrongful disconnection of electricity in accordance with law. If such a suit is filed the Civil Court shall decide the matter on the basis of evidence to be laid by the parties without being influenced by this order. The respondents shall also pay costs assessed at rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner.