JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - Aggrieved of disconnection of electricity on 09.07.2017 at the premises of the petitioner-company and consequent provisional assessment dated 09.07.2017, the petitioner seeks a direction for restoration of electricity. The petitioner-M/s Gajanan Ferro Pvt. Ltd. has challenged the inspection report dated 09.07.2017 also. 2. The petitioner-company was granted HTSS connection on contract demand of 5500 KVA which was energised on 15.10.2011. Subsequently, the contract demand was enhanced to 10000 KVA and now reduced to 5000 KVA. It is pleaded that on 31.05.2017, a power breakdown was reported to the respondent-Nigam''s authorities who visited the premises and after removing the defects, restored power supply at the petitioner''s unit. Again, after an unusual sound was heard from the meter-room on 06.07.2017, the matter was reported to the respondent-Nigam on 07.07.2017, however, when no action was taken, on 08.07.2017 the petitioner again approached the respondent-Nigam. Its officers visited petitioner''s premises on the same day. The petitioner has claimed that during the inspection all seals affixed by the respondents in the meter, meter-room, metering unit etc. were found intact. The respondent took MRI of the meter which shows low voltage in ''R'' Phase from around 3.30 p.m. on 19.06.2017 which was continuing till the date of inspection, that is, 08.07.2017. A report was prepared on 09.07.2017 and on the basis of a written report dated 09.07.2017 a first information report dated 09.07.2017 was lodged under Section 135/138 of Electricity Act, 2003 on the allegation of theft of energy. The respondents issued provisional assessment dated 10.07.2017 for Rs. 1, 31,04,446/-. 3. Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner referring to Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 submits that in complete violation of the provisions under 2015 Regulations, a case of theft has been lodged and consequently, an erroneous provisional assessment under second proviso to Section 135 (1A) of Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 11.9 has been raised. Referring to the provisional assessment order, the learned Senior counsel submits that once in MRI report low voltage has been detected from 19.06.2017, provisional assessment from 31.05.2017 is patently erroneous. Referring to the provisional assessment order, the learned Senior counsel submits that once in MRI report low voltage has been detected from 19.06.2017, provisional assessment from 31.05.2017 is patently erroneous. It is further contended that though under the assessment formula in cases of theft vide Annexure 19 to 2015 Regulations, double the assessment under the formula mentioned therein has not been provided, which is, infact, the penalty under sub-Section 5 to Section 154 which may be imposed upon the consumer once a case of theft under Section 135 is found proved, however, at this stage itself the respondents have imposed penalty under section 154 (5). 4. Responding to the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Nigam refers to Clause 8.2.30 and Annexure-19 to the Regulations which provides formula for unit to be assessed and submits that since provision under Section 126 of Electricity Act for assessment of charges for unauthorised use of electricity has been made applicable in cases of theft under Section 135, the provisional assessment in the case of theft shall be twice the units assessed according to the formula given under Annexure-19. It is further submitted that in cases of theft no leniency is warranted and the matter must be dealt with sternly. 5. Without expressing any final opinion at this stage on the issues raised on behalf of the rival parties, it needs to be mentioned that the inspection report dated 09.07.2017 refers to MRI report which disclosed low voltage from 19.06.2017 whereas, the provisional assessment has been made from 31.05.2017. Prima facie, on this count the provisional assessment appears to be erroneous. In so far as the contention importing provision for assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act to the cases of theft under Section 135 of Electricity Act is concerned, suffice would be to indicate that Annexure-19 does not indicate that the provisional assessment shall be twice the units assessed for the period, as provided under the Regulations. On the aforesaid assumptions, a calculation chart on provisional assessment has been tendered by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. This calculation indicates an amount of Rs. 3400000/-(approx). 6. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior counsels for the parties on the question of interim relief, I am inclined to direct the respondents for restoration of electricity supply at petitioner''s unit on payment of Rs. This calculation indicates an amount of Rs. 3400000/-(approx). 6. Considering the submissions of the learned Senior counsels for the parties on the question of interim relief, I am inclined to direct the respondents for restoration of electricity supply at petitioner''s unit on payment of Rs. 30 Lacs to the respondent-Nigam within next fifteen days, however, on payment of Rs. 15 Lacs, the electricity supply shall be restored forthwith. The payment made by the petitioner shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petition and final calculation. 7. Ordered accordingly. 8. Four weeks'' time is granted for filing counter-affidavit. 9. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed two weeks thereafter. 10. Post the matter on 21.09.2017.