ABHINAVA Upadhya, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the order of this Court dated 8. 8. 2008 has not been complied with. The operative portion of the order is quoted hereinbelow: - "we, therefore, dispose of the writ petition finally, with a direction that in case electricity connection has been disconnected for want of B/l form, the same shall be restored forthwith. The respondent no. 1 is also hereby directed to consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of necessary revised B/l form and issue the same, as may be permissible under law, expeditiously. " Sri Vishal Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that in spite of the aforesaid clear cut orders, the electricity connection of the petitioner has not been restored. He submits that the order of this Court was to restore the connection forthwith and the order was passed in the presence of counsel for the department and more than two months have passed, yet it has not been restored and, therefore, the order of this Court has not been complied with and the opposite party is guilty of contempt and notice be issued to him. Vide order dated 26. 8. 2008, notices were issued to the opposite party, who was directed to show cause by filing an affidavit, failing which he was required to appear before this Court. It appears that counter affidavit was filed and this Court vide order dated 8. 9. 2008 granted ten days' time to the counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. The parties have exchanged pleadings. Sri Manoj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that a consistent view was taken by the department even before the writ Court that the disconnection of the electricity connection of the petitioner was not due to non-issuance of B/l form but was due to arrears of electricity dues. He further submits that the writ Court noticing the aforesaid fact has only directed that in case the disconnection of the electricity of the petitioner is on the ground of non-issuance of B/l form, the same shall be restored forthwith and further directed the authorities to issue the aforesaid B/l form. He further emphasizes that his electricity has not been restored due to the fact that it was not disconnected on the ground of non issuance of B/l form but was due to non payment of electricity dues. He has drawn my attention to the counter affidavit, wherein by way of Annexure-1 a document has been filed, which is said to be a notice of demand dated 5. 7. 2008, by which the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 80,906/- by 14. 7. 2008, failing which, the electricity connection would be disconnected. As Annexure1-A, a bill dated 3. 7. 2008 is also filed and as Annexure-2, another bill dated 30. 8. 2008 of an amount of Rs. 2,20,796/- is filed, which includes the earlier outstanding amount of Rs. 80,906/ -. It is submitted that the aforesaid documents have been filed only in order to indicate that the actual reason for disconnection of the petitioner's electricity connection was arrears of the aforesaid dues and not non-issuance of B/l form and, therefore, the respondent has not committed any contempt of Court in any manner as the order of this Court dated 8. 8. 2008 has not been violated in any manner. Sri Vishal Dixit, on the other hand submits that the demand dated 5. 7. 2008 and bill dated 3. 7. 2008, filed as Annexure-1 and 1a are fictitious documents and have been manufactured only in order to circumvent the order of this Court. If the aforesaid documents are fictitious documents, the petitioner may challenge them before the appropriate forum. So far as the contempt of Court is concerned, the aforesaid documents corroborate with the assertion made before the writ Court itself that the electricity disconnection is for the reason of non-payment of electricity dues by the petitioner. This fact is evident from the plain reading of the order of the writ Court dated 8. 8. 2008. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it does not appear that the order of this Court dated 8. 8. 2008 has been violated in any manner and accordingly, the contempt petition is misconceived and is therefore dismissed. The notices issued are discharged. .;