Judgment : Prashant Kumar, J. In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2, General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur whereby and where under he made final assessment and concluded that petitioner liable to pay Rs. 17,47,170/- for the pilferage of electric energy. 2. It appears that petitioner set up an industry and engaged in manufacturing of M.S. Steel Ingots. It is stated that for running the said industry, petitioner took electrical connection, from the Jharkhand State Electricity Board ( herein after referred as JSEB ), having a contract demand of 1200 KVA. It is stated that thereafter , petitioner's meter had gone defective, which was replaced by the Board on 12.02.2006. After replacing the Meter, last meter reading was taken by the JSEB on 31.03.2006 and a bill raised for the month of March, 2006 to the tune of Rs. 14,60,143/- Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation against the aforesaid bill and requested the Board to rectify the same. Accordingly, the bill for the month of March, 2006 rectified and a revised bill issued to the tune of Rs. 8,94,236/-. It is alleged that the Board officials in lieu of aforesaid correction demanded illegal gratification, which the petitioner flatly refused, upon which they threatened to take coercive measures against the petitioner. It is stated that in view of aforesaid threat, a team of Board officials conducted raid-cum-inspection in the premises of the petitioner on 23.04.2006 at 01 O'clock in the mid night and the team levelled various allegations against the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter, an inspection report prepared and FIR lodged before the Chandil Police Station being Chandil P.S. Case No. 54/06. On the date of inspection petitioner's electric line has been disconnected. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner was served with a provisional assessment bill of Rs. 63,07,500/-. It is stated that petitioner filed a writ petition in this court vide W.P. (C) No. 2485/2006. In the said writ petition, a Bench of this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10.00/- lakhs with the JSEB and if such amount is deposited, the JSEB should restore electric connection. It is stated that after deposit of aforesaid amount, petitioner's electrical connection had been restored. In the said writ petition, a Bench of this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10.00/- lakhs with the JSEB and if such amount is deposited, the JSEB should restore electric connection. It is stated that after deposit of aforesaid amount, petitioner's electrical connection had been restored. Thereafter, petitioner had been served with a notice to show cause as to why the entire amount assessed in the provisional order be not realized from the him. In pursuance of said notice, petitioner filed his explanation and appeared before the Assessing Officer. It is stated that thereafter, Electrical Superintending Engineer, Chaibasa vide his letter no. 701 dated 30.05.2006 issued a final assessment order of Rs. 63,07,500/- The said assessment order was challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid writ application by way of I.A.No.1331/2006. It appears that thereafter, the Hon'ble Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.04.2009 dismissed the writ application on the ground that alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of learned Single Judge by filing letters patent appeal being L.P.A.No.199/2009, which was allowed vide order dated 05.10.2009 and the case was remitted to the General Manager -cum-Chief Engineer, Jamshedpur Area Electricity Board for passing final assessment order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, General Manager -cum-Chief Engineer vide his order dated 30.12.2009 passed a final assessment order and directed that petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 17,47,170/- for pilferage of electrical energy. Against that order, present writ application filed. 3. It is submitted by Sri M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that new meter replaced in the petitioner's premises on 12.02.2006. Thereafter, meter reading was taken on 31.03.2006. It is further submitted that alleged inspection took place on 23.04.2006. Thus, if at all, there had been any pilferage of electrical energy, the period of bill should be from 31.03.2006 to 23.04.2006. Under the said circumstance, the calculation done by the Assessing Authority is wrong. It is further submitted that the Assessing Authority while passing final order had applied the formula of LXFZHZD, which is not available. The Assessing Authority was required to make assessment on the basis of average billing as held by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Jai Mahavir Atta Mill and another. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others ( L.P.A. No.164/2009 ). 4. The Assessing Authority was required to make assessment on the basis of average billing as held by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Jai Mahavir Atta Mill and another. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others ( L.P.A. No.164/2009 ). 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior Standing Counsel appearing for Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited ( herein after referred as the Electrical Company) submits that in the instant case, the inspecting team had found that the petitioner was committing theft of electricity by tampering the metering unit and during inspection, two extra wires found hanging from the secondary terminal of the metering unit. It is also pointed out that in the FIR, it is clear that the metering unit had been placed on a double pole which was behind the factory. It is submitted that on 31.03.2006 meter reading was taken which was situated in the meter room, whereas theft of electricity was committing by tampering metering unit. It is submitted that while taking meter unit, the officials of the Board has not noticed the commission of theft of electricity, because same was being done through metering unit, which was installed on a double pole structure behind the factory. Under the said circumstance, it cannot be said that alleged theft had been committed only after 31.03.2006 when meter reading was taken by the Board officials. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer had rightly took into consideration the period of 70 days for assessing the amount of loss to the Electricity Board. It is submitted that formula of assessment of loss of electricity in case of theft has been accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board ( 2013) 3 JLJR-435, which attains finality as the S.L.P. against it had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no merit in this writ application. Hence, the same be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. In the inspection report as well as in the FIR, it is alleged that petitioner was committing theft of electricity by tampering the metering unit. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no merit in this writ application. Hence, the same be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 6. In the inspection report as well as in the FIR, it is alleged that petitioner was committing theft of electricity by tampering the metering unit. It is stated in the FIR that when the inspecting team entered inside the gate of the factory, they saw a person near the metering unit and when they raised alarm, he fled away. Thereafter, the team found two extra wires hanging with the secondary terminal of the metering unit. It is observed by the inspecting team that theft was being committed by sorting CT terminals. The inspecting team further found change of the glass of secondary sight of metering unit. They also found that the signatures on the paper seal affixed on the glass were forged. Accordingly, on the date of inspection itself, in presence of representative of the consumer, the inspection report prepared and a copy of the same served upon him. Thereafter, electrical connection of the petitioner disconnected and FIR lodged. 7. From perusal of impugned order of assessment as contained in Annexure-14, I find that petitioner was heard and the Assessing Authority considered his argument. Thereafter, final assessment order passed after applying the formula LXFXHXD and petitioner was directed to pay Rs.17,47,170/- towards pilferage of electrical energy. 8. In Shyam Lal Iron & Steel Company. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court has concluded that the application of formula i.e. LXFXHXD for assessment of electrical energy, in case of theft, is correct. The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as the S.L.P. against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed. In that view of the matter, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assessing Authority is require to issue final assessment order on average basis, is not acceptable. 9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that period of theft of electricity be taken from the date of last reading i.e. 31.03.2006 to the date of inspection i.e. 23.04.2006 is not acceptable, because it is alleged that the petitioner was committing theft of electrical energy by tampering the metering unit. 9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that period of theft of electricity be taken from the date of last reading i.e. 31.03.2006 to the date of inspection i.e. 23.04.2006 is not acceptable, because it is alleged that the petitioner was committing theft of electrical energy by tampering the metering unit. It is worth mentioning that the metering unit was installed on double pole structure behind the factory. Thus, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of last reading, the Board officials not found any abnormality in the meter, is of no help to the petitioner, because the Board officials took the reading of the meter, which was installed in the meter room, whereas pilferage of electrical energy, alleged to have been committed from the metering unit, which was installed behind the factory. Under the said circumstance, the Assessing Authority had rightly taken the period of theft from 12.02.2006, the date on which metering unit changed. Thus, I find no illegality in the assessment order in this regard. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 11. It appears that petitioner had already paid Rs. 10.00/- lakhs, which was acknowledged by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Thus, petitioner is directed to pay rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 07,47,170/- within one month from today. In the event of failure of petitioner to pay said amount within the aforesaid period, the Board will take all coercive steps for disconnection of electricity and/or realization of aforesaid amount. Application Dismissed.