JUDGMENT : Instant appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 28th February, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.1098 of 2017 by the learned First Court whereby the respondents was directed to serve upon the petitioner the assessment order and the supplementary bill pertaining to consumption of electricity within a period of two weeks in terms of Clause 11.9 of the Electricity Supply Code Regulations, 2015. The Court has further observed that it is upto the appellant/petitioner to liquidate the liability arising out of such assessment or to wait for the outcome of the criminal case pending before the Special Court. 2. The short fact of the case is that the appellant, owner of a rice mill engaged in manufacturing and processing of rice, took an electrical connection from Jharkhand State Electricity Board with the sanctioned load of 40 H.P. on Low Tension Scheme for the rice mill from a 100 K.V.A. transformer in the year 1999 and accordingly agreement was entered in between the parties on 3rd April, 2000 under L.T.I.S. Tariff. Thereafter, an additional load of 15 H.P. was sanctioned on 1st March, 2005 which was later on enhanced to 90 H.P. on 15th April, 2006. The sanctioned load of 90 H.P. was enhanced to 103 H.P. on 21st April, 2010 and agreement for this enhanced load was executed between the parties. The further case of the appellant is that till February, 2014, the respondents were raising bill under Low Tension Tariff but suddenly from March, 2014 bill was raised under High Tension Tariff and the consumer number was also changed without following the due process of law for conversion as well as without execution of any agreement for supply of power. The appellant/petitioner approached the respondent to raise the bill as per L.T.I.S. tariff as there was no agreement executed under H.T. tariff. The respondent vide memo no.477 dated 5th March, 2014 informed the appellant that during inspection the load of the premises was found to be 220 H.P. against the sanctioned load of 103 H.P. so the appellant was directed to take appropriate steps for conversion into H.T. agreement. The respondent vide memo no.477 dated 5th March, 2014 informed the appellant that during inspection the load of the premises was found to be 220 H.P. against the sanctioned load of 103 H.P. so the appellant was directed to take appropriate steps for conversion into H.T. agreement. The appellant questioned the manner of inspection in which according to the appellant, defective and broken machines lying within the campus of the factory were included for determination of load which was assessed to 220 H.P. instead of 103 H.P. It is also the appellant’s case that the respondent no.3-Superintending Engineer, Electrical Supply Circle, J.B.V.N.L., Jamtara informed the appellant that the tariff has been converted to H.T. tariff and served a legal notice on 21st December, 2015 to deposit Rs.7,59,035/- pointing out therein that otherwise certificate proceeding would be initiated against the appellant. This notice was issued without any proceeding under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. In reply to the legal notice, the appellant approached respondent no.4, Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, J.B.V.N.L., Jamtara and requested for payment in installments as his electrical line was disconnected since February, 2015. As the request for payment in installment was not accepted then the appellant paid Rs.50,000/- on 26th May, 2016. The respondents admitted that the electrical connection of appellant is disconnected against dues of Rs.3,55,305/- Since the electrical line was disconnected due to unilateral conversion of L.T. tariff into H.T. tariff by the respondent, the appellant started using D.G. set and steam vapour engine for running the rice mill. The respondent lodged an F.I.R. on 27th January, 2017 against the appellant for theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.69,09,786/- as the rate charged under H.T. tariff. The appellant approached writ court for the following reliefs:- (a) Seeking restoration of its electricity connection. (b) Quashing of illegal assessment of Rs.69,09,786/- in Jamtara P.S. case no.13/2017. (c) For issuance of show cause upon the respondents as to how L.T.I.S. connection of the petitioner has been unilaterally converted into H.T. tariff without following the due procedure. (d) Directing the respondents to revise the bill from March, 2014 under the L.T.I.S. tariff. (b) Quashing of illegal assessment of Rs.69,09,786/- in Jamtara P.S. case no.13/2017. (c) For issuance of show cause upon the respondents as to how L.T.I.S. connection of the petitioner has been unilaterally converted into H.T. tariff without following the due procedure. (d) Directing the respondents to revise the bill from March, 2014 under the L.T.I.S. tariff. (e) For quashing the load inspection report dated 08.02.2014 where under it has been determined as 220 H.P. instead of 103 H.P. (f) For allowing the petitioner to use diesel generator set and steam power engine to run the rice mill till the electrical line of the petitioner is restored. 3. The writ court after hearing the parties disposed of with observation that:- 8. In such circumstances, at this stage, this Court is of the view that the respondents should serve upon the petitioner the assessment order and the supplementary bill within a period of two weeks in terms of Clause 11.9. 9. The consequence which follows in case of institution of an F.I.R. on allegation of theft of electricity, have been laid down in the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Shyamlal Iron and Steel Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Board reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 435 . It is upto the petitioner to liquidate the liability arising out of such assessment or to wait for the outcome of the criminal case pending before the special court. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that being aggrieved by the order of the writ court, the appellant filed this appeal on the ground that the respondent without entering into an agreement for supply of H.T. line and affixing of transformer of 11 K.V.A. with maximum demand indicator, cannot compel a consumer to pay the charges under H.T. supply. The respondent supplied the electricity under 400 Volts and H.T. consumer is supplied electricity of 1100 Volts with a dedicated transformer installed within the premises which is a pre-requisite for H.T. consumers. In the present case, contention of the appellant is that the respondents are supplying power from a transformer installed outside the appellant’s premises and electrical supply is also made from this transformer to the entire village and L.T.I.S. unit of M/s Puja Chura Mill, therefore, the appellant cannot be treated as H.T. consumer. In the present case, contention of the appellant is that the respondents are supplying power from a transformer installed outside the appellant’s premises and electrical supply is also made from this transformer to the entire village and L.T.I.S. unit of M/s Puja Chura Mill, therefore, the appellant cannot be treated as H.T. consumer. The agreement between the parties was for the supply of electricity as low tension industrial consumer. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submitted that till February, 2014, the respondents were raising bills under the Low Tension Tariff but from March, 2014 without executing any agreement or installation of dedicated transformer or without making necessary changes in the wiring system raised bill on the basis of High Tension Tariff. It seems that after inspection in the premises of the appellant, a notice dated 11th February, 2014 (Annexure-7) was served as the appellant was found consuming 220 H.P. instead of 103 H.P. He also submitted that if inspecting officer finds excess load then he has to serve one month’s notice to the consumer for regularization of the load and after expiry of one month, inspecting officer will again inspect the premises to verify regularization of the load factor. The relevant provision of Low Tension Industrial and Medium Power Service (LT.I.S.) is quoted hereinbelow:- “Tariff: Installation Based Tariff: All consumers under this category and opting for Installation based tariff shall be required to pay fixed charges per HP as per the applicable tariff rates for this category. If the inspecting officer during the inspection of a premises finds excess load (more than 114 HP) then the inspecting officer has to serve one month notice to the consumer for regularization of excess load (above 114 HP). After the expiry of the said one month, the inspecting officer will inspect the premises again and if he still finds un-regularized load in the premises, action may be taken as per law.” Learned senior counsel further submitted that the respondent did not proceed further under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and the proceeding were dropped, but the respondent continued to raise bills on the basis of High Tension Tariff and appellant continued to lodge protest about raising of such bills, though part payment was made by the appellant even then it resulted in disconnection of the line from February, 2015 on the ground of non-payment of High Tension Tariff bill. Respondents issued a notice on 21st December, 2015 asking the appellant to make payment of Rs.7,59,035/- otherwise certificate proceeding would be initiated. The appellant with a view to resolve the matter wrote a letter on 29th December, 2015 with a prayer to allow him to deposit in installment but the same cannot be treated that the appellant had accepted the condition of the Board in raising High Tension Tariff bill. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to the point that the appellant requested the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Dumka for issuance of final bill after making correction, on which Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electrical Circle, Jamtara noted on it on 20th December, 2016 that the line is already disconnected, Meter was taken away on 2nd March, 2016, there is dues of L.T.I.S. line of Rs.3,55,305/- and dues of domestic charges of Rs.37,872/- and domestic line is functional. In spite of that no final bill was raised by the respondent. Learned senior counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of M/s Jaiswal Ceramices Versus Bihar State Electricity Board reported in 1980 BBCJ 179 , M/s Swastik Insulated Wires & Strips Ltd. Versus Jharkhand State Electricity Board reported in 2010 (2) JCR 301 and Bharech Nagar Carboniztion Works Versus Bihar State Electricity Board in C.W.J.C. No.2577 of 1993, Himadri Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Jhar 1184 : AIR 2019 Jhar 28 . Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in compliance of this Court’s order dated 23rd August, 2017 appellant has deposited Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) although as per their calculation the outstanding dues including penalty would be Rs.6,82,845/- only. Therefore, the respondent may be directed to refund the excess amount to the appellant. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted lastly that an inspection by the team of officers of the Nigam was conducted on 27th January, 2017 on various consumers including premises of this appellant, and F.I.R. was lodged against appellant for theft of electricity by hooking through a P.V.C. wire causing loss to the Board to the tune of Rs.69,09,786/-. It is submitted that the same is in colorable exercise of power as the procedure as per Clause 11.1 of the Supply Code Regulations, 2015 were not followed as well as authorized officer has not prepared any report as per Clause 11.5 of the Supply Code Regulations, 2015. It is submitted that the same is in colorable exercise of power as the procedure as per Clause 11.1 of the Supply Code Regulations, 2015 were not followed as well as authorized officer has not prepared any report as per Clause 11.5 of the Supply Code Regulations, 2015. He further submitted that respondent reported that the hooking was made in the Low Tension Line without any theft from High Tension Line. Therefore, the entire proceeding relating to F.I.R. of Jamtara P.S. Case No.13 of 2017 are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that appellant was ready to make payment of the entire bill but had prayed to deposit in eight installments which means that appellant had accepted the bills raised on the basis of High Tension Line. He further submitted that appellant had also asked for raising of final bill as the appellant had implied consent accepting the bill raised on the basis of High Tension Tariff. He further submitted that for Low Tension consumers, the load is of 100 K.V.A. or 114 H.P., the moment load exceeds then there is deemed conversion of tariff, but the appellant is deliberately not entering into an agreement under High Tension Tariff and avoiding paying entire dues raised and demanded by the respondent. He further submitted that the capacity of the transformer is 200 K.V.A. and line was not given to other consumers. In this situation, the prayer of appellant ought not to be accepted and he has to pay and clear the dues raised against him. Learned Advocate General referred to the letter of Electrical Executive Engineer dated 11th February, 2014 (Annexure-7) which is a show cause notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act which mentions of inspection of the premises consuming electrical load of 220 H.P. whereas 103 H.P. is sanctioned. Copy of the inspection report was also attached and notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 inviting objection within seven days were called otherwise it was to be treated that appellant has nothing to say. Therefore, proper notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act was served upon the appellant and therefore, on this ground, he submitted that the appellant was liable to pay under the High Tension Tariff. 6. Therefore, proper notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act was served upon the appellant and therefore, on this ground, he submitted that the appellant was liable to pay under the High Tension Tariff. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that initially the appellant-company was provided electrical connection under low tension tariff and subsequently the load factor was sanctioned and enhanced till 21st April, 2010 and respondents were raising bill under low tension tariff till February, 2014. During inspection in March, 2014, the appellant was found to be consuming more power and the tariff was converted to high tension tariff. The arguments were advanced on behalf of appellant that without following the procedure for supply of electricity to the H.T. consumer proper course were not followed. Since the bills were raised by the respondent-Board informing the appellant that tariff has been converted to high tension and served a legal notice in December, 2015 to deposit the amount specifying therein that otherwise certificate proceeding would be initiated. Thereafter, the appellant approached the respondent and requested for payment in installment and that is being treated as acceptance by the appellant. To understand the difference between High Tension and Low Tension consumer, a comparative chart has been prepared which is reproduced hereinbelow:- Difference between High Tension and Low Tension consumer Sl. No. L.T. H.T. 1 Defined under Regulation No.2.3 (ss) of Supply Code Regulations, 2015. Defined under Regulation No.2.3 (mm) of Supply Code Regulations, 2015. 2 It means a voltage that does not exceed 250 volts between phase and neutral or 440 volts between any two phases. It means a voltage level between 650 volts and 33000 volts. 3 The schedule is for a load of less than or equal to 100 KVA (or equivalent in terms of H.P. of KW). The equivalent H.P. for 100 KVA shall be 114 H.P. and equivalent for 100 KVA shall be 85.044 KW. It shall be applicable for consumers having contract demand above 100 KVA. 4 Service character of LTIS- AC, 50 Cycles, single phase supply at 230 Volts or 3 phase supply at 400 volts. Service character 50 Cycles, 3 Phase at 6.6 KV/11KV/33KV/132KV/220KV/ 400KV. 5 Demand based tariff/installation based tariff for sanctioned load upto 85.044 KW No installation based tariff and only demand based tariff. 6 Not a pre-requisite. 4 Service character of LTIS- AC, 50 Cycles, single phase supply at 230 Volts or 3 phase supply at 400 volts. Service character 50 Cycles, 3 Phase at 6.6 KV/11KV/33KV/132KV/220KV/ 400KV. 5 Demand based tariff/installation based tariff for sanctioned load upto 85.044 KW No installation based tariff and only demand based tariff. 6 Not a pre-requisite. Requires Air break switch, low tension oil circuit breaker, 400 volts and distribution board. 7 Lines/Distribution from common transformer owned by Board to various consumes. The transformer is located at a common place outside from where electric connection are given to various category of consumers including domestic, agriculture, commercial as well as L.T.I.S. consumers. Have an independent transformer and a dedicated transformer to be installed inside the premises of a unit, the property of the industry and is utilized only by the particular H.T. consumer. It has been argued that admitted position is that transformer was installed outside the factory premises and it was not a dedicated transformer for the use of H.T. consumer. It also appears that the provisions of electric supply code have not been fully complied with as there was no such report by the authorized officer serving one month notice to the consumer for regularization of excess load above 114 H.P. and after expiry of one month, the inspecting officer again was to inspect the premises to find out that un-regularized load had been regularized under H.T.I.S. category. There was no agreement executed between the parties for consumption of electricity under the H.T.I.S. category. 7. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of respondents about deemed conversion from L.T.I.S. to H.T.I.S. in the backdrop of the fact that no dedicated transformer for this consumer was provided nor any wiring and installation of requisite switch breakers necessary for H.T.I.S. consumers were installed. The respondent had repeatedly asked for final bill under L.T.I.S. but the same was not raised and the Board insisted for payment of bill which was raised on the basis of H.T.I.S. The request for payment in installment cannot be treated as acceptance of liability under H.T.I.S. by the appellant while the Board has issued it without following the provisions meant for H.T.I.S. consumer. No provision of law or any applicable code has been cited before us on behalf of the electricity company under which such unilateral or automatic migration of a low tension consumer to a high tension one can take place. 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the matter be remanded to the respondent-Board for raising fresh final bill under L.T.I.S. tariff and the same would be adjusted from the amount already deposited by the appellant. This shall not preclude the electricity company from exercising its right or power to convert the character of the appellant consumer from a low tension one to a high tension consumer upon following due course specified in law. 9. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter of quashing of F.I.R. relating to theft of electricity, as the competent court would arrive at a final decision in the matter. 10. In the result, instant appeal is disposed of. The order of the learned First Court is set aside. The bills raised since March, 2014 treating the appellant as H.T.I.S. consumer as well as penalty imposed are also set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent-Board for raising fresh final bill under L.T.I.S. tariff and the same would be adjusted from the amount already deposited by the appellant. Rest amount shall remain with respondent-company, which could be adjusted against future bills or otherwise on the direction of the court of Special Judge, Jamtara dealing with matter of electricity. We further direct immediate restoration of supply of electricity to the appellant within two weeks from the date of communication of this judgment and order. 11. It was argued on behalf of respondent that the appellant is not executing agreement under H.T.I.S. tariff. In this situation, we would like to clarify that if the appellant prefers to have H.T.I.S. connection then agreement between the parties could be executed afresh in future after following and observing due process relating to supply of electricity to the High Tension Consumer. If the appellant denies to execute such agreement, it shall be open to the respondents to take such steps as may be permissible under the law. 12. As the main appeal stands disposed of, the connected interlocutory application (I.A. No3453 of 2017) also stands disposed of.