R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that the respondents raised bill on commercial tariff from the date of connection i.e. 16-6-1992 till March 1997, though the connection was a domestic one.
(2.) It is submitted that after the petitioner was given a domestic connection being consumer No. UB-567 on 16-6-1992, the respondents continued to raise bill on commercial tariff, which was repeatedly protested by the petitioner; and some of such wrong bills had to be paid in order to avoid disconnection Pursuant to the petitioner's objection, an inspection was made on 12-1-1995 (Annexure. 2), in which it was noted that energy is being used for domestic purposes and therefore domestic tariff may be charged. Even then the charge on commercial tariff continued till March, 1997. Only thereafter the bills were raised on domestic tariff. After filing this writ petition, a letter was issued by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Urban-11, Ranchi, being Memo No. 256 dated 24-11-1997 (Annexure-13 to the supplementary affidavit), in which he clearly said that the connection in question was domestic one, and it was used as domestic connection. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court dated 31-10-1996 passed in CWJC No. 381 of 1995 (R) and Gaya Rolling Flour Mills v. BSEB-1995 (1)i PLJR, 715 (para 9 and 10).
(3.) Mr. Mukesh Kumar, appearing for the Board, could not dispute the said inspection report dated 12-1-1995 and the letter dated 24-11-1997 (Annexure-2 and 13), relied by the petitioner.;