Order When this case is taken up, the petitioner pressed LA. No. 2009 of 2008, praying for an interim order. 2. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short Board), submitted that instead of passing any interim order, the writ petition itself can be disposed of at this stage. 3. In view thereof, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition as well as interlocutory application (I.A. No. 2009 of 2008) have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner-firm has prayed for restoration of their electrical connection, which, according to the petitioner, has been arbitrarily disconnected on the allegation of theft of electricity by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the bills raised after provisional assessment to the tune of Rs.1,27,08,768/-. 5. It has been stated that the petitioner-firm has been carrying its business since long. They have been provided electricity connection and have been paying their bills regularly. The bills were raised by the Board's official after due inspection of the petitioner's premises. The petitioner's premises was inspected upto January, 2008. Bills were raised and amounts were paid. 6. From the month of February, 2008, the Respondent-Board has not inspected the petitioner's premises saying that a new method has been implemented for recording reading in the meter by the system of GSM through satellite. 7. The petitioner's grievance is that suddenly the raid was conducted in the premises of the petitioner-firm on 19th June, 2008 and an F.I.R. was lodged, alleging theft of electricity by interfering with the system etc. In the F.I.R., a tentative amount of loss has been quoted as Rs.1,27,08,768/-. It has been submitted that the allegation is wholly false and without any basis and the amount of loss mentioned in the F.I.R. is imaginary. It has been further stated that the respondents have also raised bills of provisional assessment under the purported provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act and the petitioner's line was disconnected. Though the line has been disconnected in the month of June, 2008, till date there has been no final assessment of the alleged loss under the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have served the bills of provisional assessment. Though the line has been disconnected in the month of June, 2008, till date there has been no final assessment of the alleged loss under the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have served the bills of provisional assessment. The petitioner-firm shall file their objection/reply against the said provisional assessment. They shall pay the finally assessed amount. It has been submitted that the petitioner could have deposited the provisionally assessed amount, but the bills show arbitrary amount in Crore, which does not commensurate with the past bills of the petitioner-firm. There is no basis of assessing the said provisional assessed bill. The petitioner is still ready and willing to pay the entire amount, if the calculation is done in accordance with the method indicated in the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. 9. It has been submitted that due to the said illegal disconnection, the petitioner has been put to suffer huge loss and injury and the employees and their family members have been put to suffer great hardship and injury. There is no justification for keeping the matter pending for final assessment for such a long time. Immediate restoration of the electricity connection is thus required for running the factory and safeguarding the interest of the petitioner and a large number of its employees during pendency of final assessment. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board contested the petitioner's claim. It has been submitted, inter alia, that the petitioner should blame itself for the situation. The same is the self-creation of the petitioner. The petitioner has indulged in illegality and tampered with the Board's system and caused loss to the Board. The loss has been assessed at the spot on the basis of best judgment formula. The same is not arbitrary or unjust. The amount has been tentatively worked out by scientific method in accordance with law. It has been submitted that the petitioner instead of rushing to this Court should have waited for the provisional bill and should have filed objection before the assessing authority of the Board in view of the provision of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, in order to enable the assessing authority to come to the final assessment. It has been submitted that the petitioner instead of rushing to this Court should have waited for the provisional bill and should have filed objection before the assessing authority of the Board in view of the provision of Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act, in order to enable the assessing authority to come to the final assessment. It has been submitted that as soon as the petitioner approaches the assessing authority and files his reply/objection, he shall complete the final assessment. The petitioner can get restoration of its electrical connection on payment of the amount of the bills of final assessment. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. From the past bills annexed with the writ petition, it appears that up to January, 2008, the bills were prepared on the basis of the reading of the meter taken by the Board's Officials. On perusal of the bills (Annexure-1 series), it appears that except the bill dated 7th December, 2007, which is of Rs.2,57,815/-, bills of other months were of Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.1,80,000/-. However, on the basis of best judgment formula, an amount of Rs.1,27,08,768/- has been shown as the loss to the Board. The provisional assessment also shows exactly the same figure of Rs.1,27,08,768/-. There is no apparent basis to support the said provisional assessment of Rs.1,27,08,768/-. However, since the matter is still pending before the assessing authority of the Board for final assessment, this Court refrains from making any observation, which may have any prejudicial effect on the assessing authority in making final assessment, in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Act. 13. At this stage and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition along with interlocutory application (I.A. No. 2009 of 2008) are disposed of, directing the petitioner-firm to file their reply/objection against the provisional assessment under the provision of Section 126 of the Electricity Act within a period of one week. The Assessing Officer after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing shall pass final order of assessment in accordance with law. The Board, thereafter, shall serve the final assessment bill on the petitioner. On receipt of the bill after final assessment, the petitioner shall pay the amount or take appropriate step as provided by law. 14. The Assessing Officer after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing shall pass final order of assessment in accordance with law. The Board, thereafter, shall serve the final assessment bill on the petitioner. On receipt of the bill after final assessment, the petitioner shall pay the amount or take appropriate step as provided by law. 14. In the meanwhile, if the petitioner deposits Rs.15 lacs (rupees fifteen lacs) against the provisional assessment bill within one week, its electrical connection shall be provisionally restored within 48 hours of receipt of the said amount. 15. Continuation of electrical connection after reconnection in compliance of this order shall be upto one week after the service of final assessment bill on the petitioner. Subsequent thereto electrical connection to the petitioner shall be subject to payment of amount of final assessment bill and/or relevant provisions of law.