ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”). 2. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of bottling soft drinks and is a HT consumer of the Board. It has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the energy bill for HT consumer dated 15.11.2011, Annexure-8, whereunder petitioner has been called upon to pay delayed payment surcharge of Rs. 71,94,322.19p. for the period between April, 2001-September, 2011 as he is alleged to have stolen energy amounting to Rs. 28.8 lacs vide First Information Report of Hajipur Industrial Area P.S.Case No. 117 of 2001 dated 4.3.2001, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. Aforesaid punitive bill amounting to Rs. 28 lacs and odd as also the delayed payment surcharge is being questioned by the petitioner in the light of the findings recorded in the report of the National Physical Laboratory dated 13.04.2001, Annexure-3 on the basis of which Final Form dated 18.2.2002, Annexure-4 was submitted in the criminal case stating that allegation of theft levelled against the petitioner is not made out. Appreciating the contents of the Final Form dated 18.2.2002 and the test report dated 13.4.2001 the Criminal Court also did not take cognizance for the offence of theft of electricity against the petitioner, as would appear from perusal of the order dated 16.4.2002, Annexure-5. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the laboratory report dated 13.4.2001 did not hold the petitioner indulging in theft, the authorities of the Board kept the amount of punitive electricity bill as stated in the First Information Report under abeyance as would appear from bill dated 13.8.2011, Annexure-6. In this background it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is not at all responsible for keeping the amount of energy theft in abeyance, as such, it cannot be held responsible for the delay in raising the said amount under impugned bill dated 15.11.2011. In this background it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is not at all responsible for keeping the amount of energy theft in abeyance, as such, it cannot be held responsible for the delay in raising the said amount under impugned bill dated 15.11.2011. As regards the merit of the matter concerning the punitive bill amount learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that charge of theft having not been found correct in the report even though the meter was tested for accuracy as per Indian Electricity Code 687 on different loads and the overall uncertainty for energy measurement accuracy test was found +-0.05% for active and +-0.07% for reactive values at 95% confidence level, it cannot be said that the petitioner was indulging in power theft and appreciating such finding of the laboratory neither the Investigating Agency found the charge of theft alleged against the petitioner established nor differing with the opinion of the Investigating Agency the court below took cognizance for the offence of power theft against the petitioner. It is further submitted that highlighting the aforesaid contention petitioner represented before the authorities of the Board but the representation was rejected under Letter No. 277 dated 30.1.2012, Annexure-13 which is also impugned in the instant writ case. 5. Learned counsel for the Board opposed the aforesaid submission and submits that the report of the laboratory, Annexure-3 did not exonerate the petitioner-Unit wholly, as would appear from the remarks recorded in Paragraph 6(iv) of the report which states that the meter in question records lesser energy consumption than the actual value in case of CT reversal. Learned counsel for the Board further submitted that failure of the Investigating Agency to appreciate Clause 6(iv) of the remark and not to submit charge-sheet against the petitioner for energy theft may not persuade the Board not to charge the petitioner for the energy which has been consumed without accounting for the same. In this connection learned counsel for the Board relied on paragraphs 7, 9 of the counter affidavit as also on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JMD Alloys Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board in Appeal No. 8324/2002 relevant portion whereof is quoted hereunder : “The mere acceptance of final report by the Magistrate cannot amount to a finding by the Criminal Court that theft of electricity was not committed. Bihar State Electricity Board in Appeal No. 8324/2002 relevant portion whereof is quoted hereunder : “The mere acceptance of final report by the Magistrate cannot amount to a finding by the Criminal Court that theft of electricity was not committed. The accused was not even summoned, no charge was framed nor any evidence was recorded. In such a situation, it cannot be held that the criminal court has recorded any finding to the effect that the petitioner has not committed theft of electricity. That apart, the purpose of a trial under Section 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act is entirely different and the object is to punish and sentence the person who is alleged to have committed the offence. The trial of an accused in a criminal case can have no bearing in the matter of assessment made in accordance with the tariff of the value of electricity dishonestly abstracted or consumed. Therefore, the contention raised on the basis of alleged acceptance on the final report in the criminal case as absolutely no merit…” 6. In rejoinder learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to different paragraphs of the rejoinder submitted that the meter recorded CT reversal but the same was not on account of manual intervention or power theft. According to learned counsel for the petitioner CT reversal noticed in remark column 6(iv) was on account of load imbalance as during October-January, 2001 there was less bottling of the soft drinks in the company which would be reflected from statutory reports filed before the Central Exercise Authorities. As such, the presumption of the Board that CT reversal was on account of power theft is wholly incorrect. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that Board authorities were aware about the report, as is evident from the letter of the Finance Controller dated 30.3.2001, Annexure-2 and are responsible for delay in decision making with regard to the findings in the report on the basis of which punitive bill amount of Rs. 28 lacs and odd has been included in the impugned bill dated 15.11.2011, Annexure-8 after about 10 years, for the 10 years during which the authorities of the Board did not consider the report petitioner cannot be held responsible, as such, the direction of the Board to charge delayed payment surcharge from April, 2001 till September, 2011 is quashed. 28 lacs and odd has been included in the impugned bill dated 15.11.2011, Annexure-8 after about 10 years, for the 10 years during which the authorities of the Board did not consider the report petitioner cannot be held responsible, as such, the direction of the Board to charge delayed payment surcharge from April, 2001 till September, 2011 is quashed. So far the punitive bill amount of Rs. 28 lacs and odd is concerned petitioner should represent before the Chairman of the Board who should consider his submission that during the period for which punitive bill has been raised in fact there was less consumption of electricity in the Plant as that was the lean season which fact can also be established from the records maintained in connection with the Central Excise Act. 8. In view of my findings above the order of the O.S.D. (Revenue) dated 30.1.2012, Annexure-13 is quashed and matter remitted back to the Chairman of the Board who shall pass appropriate order in regard to the punitive bill amount of Rs. 28 lacs and odd considering my observations above within reasonable time not exceeding two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Chairman of the Board. During the pendency of the matter before the Chairman of the Board the amount of the punitive bill shall be kept in abeyance but petitioner shall continue to pay the current electricity charges. 9. Writ application stands disposed of.