IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8752 of 2009 Bhaiya Lal Prasad son of Late Thakur Prasad, resident of village Maharaj Ghat, Machharhatta, P.S. Khajekalan, District Patna…………………………………………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Vidut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna (East Shivalay Market, Ashok Rajpath, Patna) 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Mitan Ghat, Patnacity. 5. The Assistant Engineer PESU (Chowk) Padriki Haweli, Patnacity. ……….Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr.Vishwaroop Jha, AC to GP 21 For the Electricity Board : Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. ----------- 05/ 10.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board and its authorities as well as learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. This writ petition has been filed for restoration of commercial electric connection to the business premises of the petitioner which earlier had Consumer No.143187/284. Learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board vehemently contests the claim of the petitioner and submits that he is not entitled for such a relief. 3. The dispute between the parties revolves around the claim of the petitioner with regard to the mischief of Junior Engineer by cutting the wire and tampering with the meter of the petitioner regarding which representation and legal notice were given to the authorities on 30.04.2008 and 02.05.2008, whereafter 2 a complaint case has also been lodged against the said Junior Engineer which is pending. On the other hand, it is claimed by learned counsel for the respondent Electricity Board that the petitioner has committed theft of electricity worth approximately Rs.4,40,000.00 regarding which an F.I.R. has been lodged and a criminal case is pending which has been challenged in the High Court. 4. Be that as it may, the aforesaid dispute between the parties has traversed twice before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Patna which admittedly has the authority to decide such claim by virtue of section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as all the grievances of consumers have to be raised before the said forum as also directed vide order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2846 of 2006, order dated 04.02.2009 passed by a Bench of this court in C.W.J.C. No.18528 of 2008 as well as order dated 21.04.2009 passed by a Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No.401 of 2009. 5. The forum has considered the matters in detail and has disposed of the said case bearing Case No.33 of 2008 and 98 of 2008 vide orders dated 26.06.2008 (Annexure-2) and 29.05.2009 (Anneuxre-7). The said orders have not been challenged either by the petitioner or by the Board before any higher forum and hence the said order had attained finality and both the parties are bound by the said orders until it is modified by the same authority or set aside by any higher authority. 3 6. In the said circumstances, the authorities of respondent Board are directed to comply the said orders of the Forum in their letter and spirit within two months from today unless the said orders are stayed by any higher authority within that time. 7. The petitioner may move before an appropriate authority for restoration of connection and if such an application is filed within fifteen days from today, the authority concerned must decide it one way or the other within one month in accordance with law without being influenced by this order. 8. With the said observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )