JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.:- On an inspection said to have been made on 02.02.2010 by various officers of the Power Corporation at the factory premises of the petitioner, it was reported to have been noticed that there had been a tampering of the electricity meter by the fact that the insulation of the secondary wires of all three phases of CT were peeled off and the loops of thin wires were put in all the three phases, thus creating two parallel paths instead of one for current from secondary of CTs to the meter. In this way, the current contribution from the CTs going to the meter was reduced and thereby the petitioner was pegging down the recording of energy consumption in the meter and indulging in the theft of energy. A provisional assessment of Rs.2,05,83,705/- for theft of energy was made on 03.02.2010 and the amount was demanded through notice prepared on 01.08.2011 and also through a letter dated 02.08.2011 requiring the amount to be paid within 3 days, after simultaneously disconnecting the electricity connection. The petitioner had approached this court by means of a writ petition in CWP No.4528 of 2010 with an interim prayer for restoration of electricity. The restoration had been ordered on interim direction on payment of Rs.25 lakhs and odd and the electricity supply had been restored. It had been pointed out in reply by the Corporation that the petitioner could give a representation against the provisional assessment and invite authority to pass a final order. On the directions given by the court on 30.05.2011, the petitioner had given his objections which were dealt with and a final assessment had been made, confirming the provisional assessment already made and calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance of amount after deducting Rs.25,36,500/- deposited by the petitioner as per the direction of the High Court. This final assessment had been challenged by means of this writ petition. 2. It is contended, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable and the assessment of civil liability has to be determined only by the Special Court before which the case is pending. This final assessment had been challenged by means of this writ petition. 2. It is contended, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable and the assessment of civil liability has to be determined only by the Special Court before which the case is pending. The petitioner is being prosecuted for the criminal offence of theft before the Special Court and the civil liability could be determined only by the Special Court and the same cannot be brought for a challenge even before the conclusion of proceedings before the Special Court. The writ petition itself is not maintainable. 3. This court has had an occasion to deal with the limit of challenge that is possible in a writ petition of complaint of theft and the assessment of final order on the charges of theft. I am not reproducing the reasons given in the said judgment, but I have held in the matter in CWP No.12600 of 2011 that a consumer will not have a right of appeal against the determination of civil liability for the theft before the Special Court unless there is prosecution of the criminal offence before the Special Court and if the Power Corporation had not resorted to such prosecution beyond service of final order of assessment a challenge before the High Court through Article 226 has not barred, but the limit of challenge shall be restricted to examination of violation of any of the statutory regulations and the impermissibility for allowing for the final order to prevail and carry out disconnection of electricity. 4. The counsel for the petitioner admits the pendency of the case before the Special Court and the scope of assessing the civil liability under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act but he would contend that the intervention in the writ petition is still possible, for, the petitioner has a fundamental grievance that the inspection could never have revealed a case of theft, for, if there was a defect in the meter, it was a defective meter installed by the Corporation itself and what was noticed as theft was really an assessment of their own defective meter. Further the prosecution of the criminal case has itself been stayed in criminal miscellaneous petition filed before this court and hence, no assessment of civil liability is possible before the Special Court. 5. Further the prosecution of the criminal case has itself been stayed in criminal miscellaneous petition filed before this court and hence, no assessment of civil liability is possible before the Special Court. 5. The counsel would set out the fact that the petitioner had a sanctioned load of 544.640 KW and a contract demand of 590 KVA. The electricity connection was functioning in the premises of the petitioner since 1996. In 2004, a computerized metering equipment in the premises with current transformer and potential transformer (CT/PT) had been placed in a metallic vault and was sealed by the respondents by means of both lead and paper seals. It was later unpacked and installed by the respondents after a few days. The metering equipment was purported to have been designed to detect any tampering with data and a memory for 70 days. It had been periodically inspected from time to time on various dates on 25.01.2007, 25.12.2008, 25.03.2009, 10.04.2009 and 12.01.2010. On a surprise inspection said to have been done on 02.02.2010 by a team of enforcement staff led by Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), Khanna and on breaking open the lead and paper seals on the metering equipment and the CT/PT, it was reported to have been found that three CT leads located inside the sealed CT/PT unit had thin wire loops, due to which electric meter recording had been rendered slower by 54.24%. The petitioner would contend that there had been periodical check-up on various dates between 2007 to 2009, as referred to already and on some of the occasions, it was reported to have been done on secret information and when the matter was regularly was being kept under surveillance, it was well-nigh impossible for the petitioner to tamper with the meter. 6. The petitioner would contend that if there was any defect, the petitioner is not responsible, for, the regulation required a duty on the Corporation to supply proper meters. The counsel would refer to Section 55 of the Act that no licensee shall supply electricity except through installation of a correct meter in accordance with the regulations to be made in this behalf. Regulation 21.2 casts a duty on the Corporation to supply the meter equipment to the applicant at the time of release of a new connection or at any other time. Regulation 21.2 casts a duty on the Corporation to supply the meter equipment to the applicant at the time of release of a new connection or at any other time. The petitioner would point out that during everyone of the anterior inspections carried out between the years 2007 to 2009, there was no error noticed at all. The counsel would refer me to the entries made at various times particularly under Annexures P4 done as late as on 25.03.2009 when it was observed as under:- “Accuracy of the meter with HTMTE line, was checked while the running load of the consumer was 264.69 KW, the results of which were found to be +0.19%, and while the running load was 215.00 KW, the results were found to be +0.12%. These results are within permissible limits. Testing of the meter has been done in compliance with the directions issued by Dy. Director (Enforcement), PSEB, Patiala.” 7. The petitioner attempted to show that the slowness factor was applied to record MDI readings from 20.11.2004 to 02.02.2010, the MDI would come in the range of 800 KVA to 900 KVA at least of about 40 occasions in 62 months. This would imply that if the allegations of theft are considered, the petitioner must have been running a load far in excess of the sanctioned load which was not supported by the fact that the load was never found to be running in excess at the premises by any agency from 2004 to 2010. These objections have not all been considered and the assessment has been made. It would be in a situation where the case is actually pending before the Special Court, the Power Corporation itself has to explain about how the excess load could have been possible in the light of the discrepancy pointed out by the consumer. Even the assessment made by the Corporation can be a subject of reappraisal by the Special Court itself. The issue of whether the Corporation itself was responsible for installing defective meter or it could have been done by the petitioner with some connivance of the highly technically qualified persons ought to be brought out at the enquiry before the Special Court and it will be futile exercise to duplicate the same through the proceedings before this court. The issue of whether the Corporation itself was responsible for installing defective meter or it could have been done by the petitioner with some connivance of the highly technically qualified persons ought to be brought out at the enquiry before the Special Court and it will be futile exercise to duplicate the same through the proceedings before this court. At the time when the writ petition was filed, it was pointed out that the issue of whether a writ was maintainable against an assessment made for theft of energy was pending consideration before the Division Bench. The case was, therefore, directed to posted after the disposal of the case by the Division Bench. When the Division Bench disposed of the case in LPA No.1900 of 2011 remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the case in CWP No.12600 of 2011 came to be revived. I have disposed of the said writ petition independently finding that a case of theft cannot be attributed at all under the particular facts and circumstances of the case. I have not found anything particularly significant about the factual similarity in two cases except that in both cases imputation of theft had been made. 8. This case is brought on different set of facts where the proceedings before the Special Court are reported to have been instituted on an issue of whether the petitioner had been guilty of theft or not in the prosecution of the criminal case, it would be appropriate that the adjudication is fully completed before the Special Court, for, it has serious factual considerations which cannot be entered in the writ petition. I direct the continuance of electricity supply on condition that the petitioner deposits another Rs.75 lakhs apart from Rs.25 lakhs reported to have been already deposited. This is in consideration of the fact that the final order of demand for the alleged theft was to the tune of Rs.2,05,83,705/-. This amount is purely provisional if the petitioner wants to enjoy the benefit of continuance of supply and shall abide by the final outcome of assessment made by the Special Court under Section 154(5) of the Electricity Act. 9. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ------------------