S.J.Mukhopadhaya - (1.) The petitioner is not happy in the manner, the Respondents raised the bill on the basis of an inspection report dated 25th February, 2000, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he requested the respondents to reduce the load from 25 HP to 15 HP, in respect to which an order was passed, vide letter No. 1928 dated 5th August, 1999. It is alleged that though inspection was made and report was submitted on 3rd February, 1999, but it was submitted in violation of decision of the Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Bir Ispat, (1998) 3 BLJR 1985. It is alleged that neither the petitioner nor any of the petitioners representatives were informed to remain present at the time of inspection, as per decision of the Court. Further case of the petitioner is that because of wrong inspection report, an inflated bill raised and communicated to the petitioner along with the report and for nonpayment, the respondents disconnected the electrical line. For the said reason, the petitioner also prayed for restoration of electrical connection.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having applied in time for reduction of load, which the respondents are bound to reduce w.e.f. 26th October, 1996, as per decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Green Rubber Industries, reported in AIR 1999 SC 699.;