JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved of disconnection of electric supply at its unit on 27.09.2017, when a First Information Report being Chakuliya P.S Case No. 30 of 2017 u/s 379, 420, 353 IPC and u/s 135/137/138 Electricity Act, 2003 was lodged against the petitioner-company and its directors. It has also challenged the direction contained in letter dated 29.09.2017 to pay Rs. 3,23,71,524/. 2. The issue raised in this writ petition assumes significance when one reads the stand of the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited in the written report dated 27.09.2017, in the context of final form submitted by the police on 30.11.2017. 3. Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner challenging the very basis of registration of the criminal case and the subsequent disconnection of electric supply at the petitioner's unit submits that in breach of the procedure under the Jharkhand State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2015 electric supply at the petitioner's unit has been illegally disconnected. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the stand of the respondent-Nigam as appearing in written report dated 27.09.2017, if found true, would bring this case within the purview of “suspected theft of electricity” and not “theft of electricity” and while so, procedure under Regulation 11.12 to 11.15 shall follow. 4. As against the above, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Standing Counsel referring to definition of the expression “theft of electricity” in Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 submits that the inspection report dated 26.09.2017 would unerringly establish theft of electricity at the petitioner's unit and therefore, in terms of the 3rd proviso to Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 the petitioner, as a condition for reconnection of electric supply at its unit, is liable to pay the assessed amount. 5. At this stage, it needs to be indicated that today the matter is fixed on the question of grant of interim relief and accordingly, this Court is required to ascertain whether the petitioner has been able to make out a prima-facie case, and whether balance of convenience is in its favour or not besides, whether continued disconnection at its unit would visit the petitioner with irreparable losses. 6. 6. On submission of final form on 30.11.2017 in Chakuliya P.S. Case No. 30 of 2017 and the stand of the respondent-Nigam as reflected in the written report dated 27.09.2017 which reads : “mil kar bijli chori karne ke sambhavna pradtit hota hai”, it needs to be recorded that as on today it has been found that the allegation against the petitioner-company does not amount to theft of electricity and accordingly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a strong prima-facie case for grant of interim relief. On the question of irreparable loss, suffice would be to indicate that the petitioner-company which is running a Steel Induction Furnace unit on account of continued cessation of work at its unit would definitely suffer losses which in terms of money cannot be compensated at a later stage, whereas the amount which may be recoverable from the petitioner-company on adjudication of the dispute between the parties can always be recovered by the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited subsequently, with adequate compensation which may be in the form of interest. It would also be pertinent to indicate here that on previous occasions when inspection was carried by the officers of the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, no irregularity in the metering unit was found. Based on the above facts the calculation of assessed amount under the 3rd proviso to Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has also been challenged by the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and stand of the petitioner that even assuming the case against it may fall under the category of “theft of electricity” the assessed amount would be only about Rs. 34 Lacs, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are directed to restore electric connection at the petitioner's unit within two days of payment of Rs. 25 Lacs by the petitioner-company. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed. 9. Additional affidavits may be filed by the parties within four weeks. Parties shall file their written submissions. 10. Post the matter on 09.05.2018 under the heading “For Final Disposal”. 11. Let a copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsels for the parties.