Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Ojha, counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner has made a limited prayer that since the civil and criminal liability has to be determined by the criminal Court, he should not be asked to pay any further amount in view of the order passed in the final assessment. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he does not wish to file an appeal as the Appellate court order will be subject to the final decision of the criminal Court in terms of Section 154 of the Bihar State Electricity Act. An inspection was conducted in the premises of the petitioner’s flour mill, a partnership firm, on two occasions prior to 19.9.2011. The first inspection was made on 6.4.2011 (page 60 of the writ application). The Meter Reading Instrument recorded the readings in the meter and the inspecting team came to the conclusion that there was no anomaly in the meter recording. Similarly, the second inspection was conducted on 6.5.2011, meter reading was taken and the reading indicated that the electricity consumption was in accordance with load. On 19.9.2011, again an inspecting team visited the premises of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the meter number 1 was tampered, the seals of the meter box were broken. The M.R.I. of the meter was taken. The readings are annexed to this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the meter recording instrument does not disclose that there was any anomaly in the readings found by the inspecting team to indicate that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity. It is submitted that even according to the Board’s own case, the only allegation against the petitioner’s firm was that there was tampering of the meter and the seals of the meter was broken. It has also been contended that the manner in which the provisional and the final assessment has been made is against the provisions of the supply code. It has been submitted that the calculation made by the final assessing authority is not in accordance with law as it takes into account 365 days for the purposes of calculating the loss to the Electricity Board. It has been submitted that the calculation made by the final assessing authority is not in accordance with law as it takes into account 365 days for the purposes of calculating the loss to the Electricity Board. It is pointed out that till May, 2011, the petitioner had a clean chit from the Board and as such, the assessing authority could not have concluded that there was any theft of electricity for 12 months. Even if the case of the Board is considered and accepted, the calculation if any, ought to be for only a period of 90 to 110 days and as such, the assessment is not in accordance with law. Infact, the entire argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is based on the fact that the Board has not actually been able to establish that the petitioner had committed electricity theft. Mere tampering of meters or broken seals would not amount to theft is the sheat anchor of the petitioner’s case. It is, therefore, submitted that the orders of the assessing authority are without jurisdiction. Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-whereas if the calculation is made for the said 110 days, it would amount to about Rs. 20,00,000/-and as such, he has paid almost the entire electricity charges to which he is liable although it is not accepted that the charges levelled against him and the bill raised are the correct bill for the reasons indicated above. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board submits that if the petitioner wishes to challenge any part of the final assessment order, he should file an appeal. It is not open for the petitioner to raise these issues before this Court and the meter has to be decided by the appellate authority. It is also submitted that the petitioner would be liable to pay at least 50% of the assessed amount if, he has to be filed an appeal. As would be apparent from Annexure-6, the petitioner had moved this Court earlier when his electric line was disconnected and a punitive bill of Rs. 58,56,732/- had been raised against the petitioner. This Court without deciding the rival contentions ordered that the electric connection of the petitioner would be restored to on the conditions that the petitioner should deposit a total sum of Rs. 58,56,732/- had been raised against the petitioner. This Court without deciding the rival contentions ordered that the electric connection of the petitioner would be restored to on the conditions that the petitioner should deposit a total sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-in installments as mentioned in the order dated 30.9.2011. During the pendency of this writ application a final assessment order has been passed which has been challenged by filing I.A. No. 8620 of 2011. It goes without saying that the I.A. is allowed. On perusal of the final assessment order contained in Annexure-10, it would appear that the allegations against the petitioner is that during the inspection it was found that the seals including ultrasonic welding strips, holographic paper seal and poly carbonate seal of the meter were tampered. Both ultrasonic strips on both flanks of the meter body were found tampered. It has been recorded in the order that the above tampering of seal and ultrasonic strips were intentionally done to gain access to metering circuitry inside. On the basis of the allegations the assessing authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was indulging in energy theft. A First Information Report was also lodged under Sections 135/138 of the Electricity Act and the assessment order directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 86,41,645/- as the final assessment amount. It has been recorded that the petitioner has only deposited Rs. 8,00,000/- and 5,00,000/-. In answer to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he is not liable for theft of electricity and that the meter recording does not indicate that the petitioner had successfully tampered with the mater, it would be relevant for this Court to refer to Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 which defines the offence of theft. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows: 135. Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 reads as follows: 135. Theft of electricity.-1 (1) Whoever, dishonestly,- (a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier, as the case may be; or (b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or (c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment, or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of electricity; or (d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized, so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both: As per the definition described above, the petitioner would be liable for theft as defined under sub clause (b) and (c) i.e. tampers with a meter so that it interferes with the proper registration, calibration or metering of the electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity stolen or wasted and Section 135 (1) (c) envisages that if a consumer damages or destroys a electric meter apparatus, equipment or wire or causes or allows any of them to be damaged or destroyed so as to interfere with the proper and accurate of the metering would amount to offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is always open to the petitioner to challenge the inspection report on the basis of which the inspection was conducted by filing an appeal. This Court cannot inter into the question as to whether there was theft or not? Having held as above, this Court however, can consider the manner in which the assessment has been done. Annexure-10 would indicate that while calculating the number of days i.e. D factor the final assessing authority has counted 365 days for the purposes of calculating the loss to the Board. Having held as above, this Court however, can consider the manner in which the assessment has been done. Annexure-10 would indicate that while calculating the number of days i.e. D factor the final assessing authority has counted 365 days for the purposes of calculating the loss to the Board. In the opinion of this Court, once the inspecting team had visited the premises of the petitioner on two earlier occasions in two consecutive months and found that there was no tampering of the meter or the seal to indicate that the petitioner had interfered with the accurate reading of the meter. The concerned authority could not have ignored this fact and counted 365 days for the purposes of calculating the loss. It is patently against the records and not sustainable. The calculation ought to be made counting the number of days from 7.5.2011 to 19.9.2011 and the final assessment calculated accordingly. This Court, therefore, remands the matter back to the final assessing authority to reconsider the calculation for the limited period aforesaid. As contended by the petitioner that he has deposited a sum of Rs.18,00,000/-if, such statement is correct, it would almost amount to paying the entire assessment charges. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court hold that electrical line of the petitioner should not be disconnected till final orders are passed. This writ application is partly allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations.