Subhash Keshari v. The Bihar State Electricity Board And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2708 of 2014 ====================================================== Subhash Keshari S/O Hari Lal Keshari, resident of Mohalla- Gaushala Road, P.S.- Siwan Muffasil, District- Siwan .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

2. The Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Sub Division, Siwan (Urban), Siwan

3. The Assistant Electric Engineer, Electricity Supply Sub Division, Siwan (Urban), Siwan .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.K.Ojha, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-02-2016 Heard Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, who was assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Ojha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent/Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner, invoking civil writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, has prayed for directing the Respondents to re-assess the penalty imposed on him and also for restraining the Respondents from proceeding with the criminal case relating to Muffasil (Mahadeva) P.S. Case no.149/13 registered under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Sri Hemendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the method of

Patna High Court CWJC No.2708 of 2014 (2) dt.09-02-2016 2/2 assessment has incorrectly been adopted and assessment has been made on higher rate, which is contrary to the procedure. However, in respect of second prayer, he submits that in the present writ petition, he is not pressing the prayer relating to stay of criminal proceeding.

Fact remains that after inspection, the loss was assessed and finding that it was a case of electricity theft, an F.I.R. has been lodged, which is still pending.

In view of the fact that it is basis of registration of the F.I.R., the Court is of the opinion that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court may not examine the veracity of the Bill. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U