Om Prakash and G.S.N. Tripathi, JJ. - (1.) THE contention of the petitioners is that a 135 KVA Load, was sanctioned to it but transformer which can take up 100, KVA load only, was installed instead and billing of consumption including minimum charges has been done on the basis of 135 KVA load. The petitioners made representation on 27 -3 -92. (Annexure 14 to the petition) to the Executive Engineer respondent No. 2, and thereafter several other representations were made. It is said that none of the representation has been decided so far by respondent No. 2, despite the report dated 19 -7 -92 given by the Junior Engineer corroborating the version of the petitioners, but recovery proceedings have been initiated instead against the petitioners.
(2.) UPON hearing the parties we dispose of the petition finally directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners within three week's from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith a copy of the representation is produced before him by the petitioners who undertake to produce the same within one week from today. For a period of one month or until decision of the representation, whichever is later, further recovery proceedings against the petitioners will not be taken up and the petitioners electricity will not be disconnected. A copy of this order may be issued to the parties on payment of usual charges within two days.;