JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner has low tension industrial service connection LTS-II at Meena Bazar, Guljarbagh, Patna City, Patna granted by the Bihar State Electricity Board. It has a sanction load of 36 H.P. It appears that on 21.8.2009, an inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner by Special Task Force of the Board. Pursuant to the inspection, an inspection report, as envisaged under Clause 11.1(a)(iv) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 was prepared, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. As per the inspection report dated 21.8.2009, all that was found was that there was excessive load of 2 H.P.; after taking into account all bulbs, fans and motors etc. The inspection report was signed by all inspecting authority and the petitioner as well and a copy of the same was handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that late in the night of 25.8.2009 a raid was conducted by the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer of the Board. It may be noticed here that when the earlier inspection was conducted on 21.8.2009 there were three Executive Engineers and these two officers, namely, Assistant Engineer, Kiran Kumar and Junior Engineer, Sanjeet Kumar as well but the present inspection on 25.8.2009 was conducted only by these two Junior Officers alongwith a Khalasi of the Board. It is not in dispute that before conducting the inspection, they carried with them police force. It is alleged that when they entered into the factory premises for inspection, there was a lot of opposition from the family members including lady members but with the help of police force they were able to detect illegal abstraction of electricity by direct connection bypassing the meter. They then prepared a detailed seizure list (Annexure- 4) after seizing various equipments, which were found in the factory including two motorcycles in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Dilip Kumar and Vinod Prasad. The seizure and inspection continued for about two hours and ended at about 2:00 AM, on 26.8.2009. The seizure list having been prepared, it is stated therein that no one turned up to receive the seizure list, as such, in presence of those two independent witnesses the seizure list was allegedly stuck on the factory door. Thereafter the inspecting team left. The seizure list having been prepared, it is stated therein that no one turned up to receive the seizure list, as such, in presence of those two independent witnesses the seizure list was allegedly stuck on the factory door. Thereafter the inspecting team left. At about 4 in the afternoon, on 26.8.2009, the said Assistant Engineer then lodges a formal F.I.R. giving rise to Mehdiganj P.S. Case No. 23 of 2009 dated 26.8.2009 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Sections 147, 342, 353, 332 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, alleging that on coming to know that theft of electricity was being committed by the petitioner, the informant organized a raiding party. When the raiding party went to the factory premises of the petitioner alongwith the police force, there was a lot of opposition from the petitioner and his family members including lady members. There was stone pelting and a serious law and order situation was created. In spite of that they were able to inspect, search and seize all equipments of the factory including wire used for unauthorizedly extracting energy bypassing the meter. As no one turned up, the seizure list was stuck on the door of the factory and they left. What were seized were various motors, machines, equipments, motorcycles and allegedly cable used for tapping electricity. All this was done in presence of two independent witnesses, as named above. The F.I.R. is Annexure-5. Thereafter, petitioner is served with a energy bill of the same date, that is, 26.8.2009 for Rs. 33,16,995/- signed by the same Assistant Electrical Engineer, showing himself to be the Assessing Officer as well. This bill is said to be based on a provisional assessment. 2. Petitioner filed this writ petition on 17.9.2009, challenging the validity of the inspection and the bill so raised. A counter affidavit has been filed today. In the said counter affidavit, as a matter of fact, it is brought on record that the provisional assessment has been done on 18.11.2009 (long after the writ petition was filed and almost 3 months after the inspection) and was sent by registered post to the petitioner on 20th November, 2009. This provisional assessment is accompanied by a calculation sheet showing how the amount of Rs. 33,16,986/- has been worked out. This provisional assessment is accompanied by a calculation sheet showing how the amount of Rs. 33,16,986/- has been worked out. What is important is, the date of this calculation sheet signed by the same very Assistant Engineer as an Assessing Officer. The date obviously is 27.11.2009, but it has been corrected to 27.8.2009 to show that it was calculated days after the inspection. Another energy bill dated 20.11.2009, being punitive bill, for theft in terms of Section 135 of the Electricity Act is now issued forgetting that a bill for the said amount based on the said allegation had already been issued on 26.8.2009 (Annexure-6). The significance of these facts will be discussed later, but, one thing is apparent that this bill now annexed is bill dated 20.11.2009 to the counter affidavit, bears the signature and date of the same Assessing Officer, which rs exactly the same as in the assessment calculation appended to the provisional assessment order except that the month has been overwritten to show August instead of November. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Clause 11.2.3 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code when an inspection is carried out in cases of theft or even otherwise, an inspection report has to be drawn up immediately in the prescribed format, as prescribed in Annexure-8 to the Bihar Electricity Supply Code. This has to be then given, as mandatorily provided, to consumer then and there and on refusal by the consumer, sent to it by registered post by next day. Within 7 days thereafter a provisional assessment has to be made based on the inspection report, which again has to be communicated to the petitioner for his objections. After considering his objections, a final assessment has to be made and communicated by a speaking order to the consumer. It is thus apparent that an inspection report in the prescribed format is a sine qua non for proceeding further in the matter and is the foundation of all future actions. 4. In the present case, there is no inspection report nor any provisional assessment order. The inspection report even as per the counter affidavit, has not been prepared. The provisional assessment order which is now appended to the counter affidavit is, as noticed above, dated 20.11.2009 when the inspection was conducted on the 26.8.2009. The writ petition was filed on 17.9.2009. In the present case, there is no inspection report nor any provisional assessment order. The inspection report even as per the counter affidavit, has not been prepared. The provisional assessment order which is now appended to the counter affidavit is, as noticed above, dated 20.11.2009 when the inspection was conducted on the 26.8.2009. The writ petition was filed on 17.9.2009. A bill purporting to be based on provisional assessment was served on the consumer being bill dated 26.8.2009. Another bill is now being served again for the same assessment being bill dated 20.11.2009, which is signed by the Assessing Officer on 27.11.2009 supported by calculation sheet dated 27.11.2009 changed to 27.8.2009. These facts, it is submitted, clearly show that things were not what they are alleged to be. It is then pointed out, as was alleged in the writ petition, that the so-called two independent witnesses, which fact is highlighted in the seizure list and the F.I.R., were none else than employees of the Boards own contractor and not independent, rather depended on Board for payment. In the counter affidavit this fact also stands admitted and established. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Board points out as apparent from the F.I.R. itself, there was a serious law and order situation created because of which proper action could not be taken. I am afraid that is not correct. 6. There are two inspecting officers who had come prepared with police force that is admitted. They had all the time in the premise to seize various equipments and now as being alleged for the first time in the counter affidavit, photographs were taken of the events. They had enough time to prepare a detailed seizure list. They had enough time to call so-called two independent witnesses to witness the seizure and sticking of the seizure list at the door still they had no time to prepare a statutory inspection report, similar to which these two inspecting officers themselves had been a party only three days Back. This is not a plausible explanation acceptable to this Court. Then, even if at that point they had not prepared inspection report, they had the whole day with them to do so because the F.I.R. was lodged at 4 in the evening, the inspection having been already concluded at 2 in the morning. This is not a plausible explanation acceptable to this Court. Then, even if at that point they had not prepared inspection report, they had the whole day with them to do so because the F.I.R. was lodged at 4 in the evening, the inspection having been already concluded at 2 in the morning. Still neither the provisional assessment was made nor inspection report which is to be the basis for the provisional assessment prepared straightway. A bill is issued to the petitioner. The said provisional assessment is now being made after three months and after two months the writ petition itself being filed with the calculation sheet in which obviously date is interpolated by the very inspecting authority. The sequence would show that first these two officers are part of Special Task Force inspection where only irregularity is of 2 H.P. excess load. The inspection is in accompaniment with the three Executive Engineers. Now, these two Junior Officers with a Khalasi of the Board and police conduct this inspection, get two independent witnesses later found and admitted to be employees of Boards own contractor and not independent as alleged, draw up no statutory report, as required, did not send the same, as required, by registered post, do not make the provisional assessment, as required, and still insist that being a case of alleged theft the petitioner must pay not only small amount but an amount of about Rs. 33 lacs, as punitive charges, which is like virtually killing the petitioner even before he is held guilty of theft by duly constituted Court where the matter is now pending. It is in these special circumstances that the prayer is made to restrain the Board from enforcing the punitive bill as served. What is further submitted is that even as per the Act, first the provisional assessment has to be made, invite objections and then final assessment is made and bill issued thereafter. Admittedly, as of today, only a belated provisional assessment is made without supporting inspection report and on the basis of provisional assessment itself, a bill is issued without granting opportunity to the petitioner to object to the provisional assessment. It is rightly shown, not without reason that the inspecting officer, the informant, the assessing officer and the adjudicating officer (for final assessment) are all one and the same person all along, all rolled into one. It is rightly shown, not without reason that the inspecting officer, the informant, the assessing officer and the adjudicating officer (for final assessment) are all one and the same person all along, all rolled into one. These facts, taken in totality, show the mala fide if not in fact at least in law. 7. In my view, the submissions appear to be correct. No statutory procedures, which were all safeguards for consumers against arbitrary action, were followed. Two Junior Officers conduct a raid in the night with one Khalasi of the Board alleging independent witnesses but later turn up to be none else than employees of Boards own contractor, paid by the Board. Thus, in my view, it would not be safe to permit the Board to proceed to enforce this punitive demand of Rs. 33 lacs when in a duly constituted inspection all that was found 2 H.P. excess load. In such a situation, as a formal F.I.R. has been lodged till the validity of inspection and the correctness of the allegations are judged by Court of competent jurisdiction, I direct that the provisional punitive bills as served on the petitioner of about Rs. 33 lacs, would not be enforced. It would be the duty of the Criminal Court, as envisaged under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act, to determine the civil liability if ultimately the petitioner is found indulging in theft. 8. So far as seizure is concerned, in my view, it has rightly been submitted that neither the Act nor the Code authorizes seizure of petitioners factory, machinery and motorcycles etc. All that is authorized to be seized is devices used to extract electricity or the equipment of the licensee or any means to wrongly interfere with those equipments of licensee. That does not extend to the consumers own equipment not being devices, as referred to above, in this order. Accordingly, the equipment of the petitioner except the devices which were used allegedly for extracting energy illegally would be liable to be returned to the petitioner. Why things like motorcycles were seized remains to be explained. 9. In any view of the matter, all petitioners equipment, as aforesaid, would be released to the petitioner on an application being filed in this regard before the learned ACJM, Patna City, on sufficient security to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending. 9. Why things like motorcycles were seized remains to be explained. 9. In any view of the matter, all petitioners equipment, as aforesaid, would be released to the petitioner on an application being filed in this regard before the learned ACJM, Patna City, on sufficient security to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending. 9. Petitioner would be at liberty to make an application before the appropriate authority for restoration of his electricity, which will not remain pending for ultimate decision of the criminal trial and would be disposed of in accordance with law and the observations made herein above expeditiously. 10. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.