IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 2383 of 2010 1. KARNAIL SINGH S/O LATE CHARAN SINGH R/O MOH KHAGAUL ROAD,MITHAPUR,P.S.JAKKANPUR,DISTT-PATNA PROPRIETOR OF M/S NEW AZAD BODY BUILDERS ,ZERO MILE,MAHATMA GANDHI SETU,PATNA,DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELELCTRICITY BOARD ,THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD,PATNA 2. THE MEMBER FINANCE , BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VIDYUT BHAWAN,BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ,ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION MAHENDRU GHAT, PATNA 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION KANKARBAGH,PATNA 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ,ELCTRICAL ENGINEER ,REVENUE,ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUB DIVISION KANKARBAGH,PATNA 6. THE JUNIOR ENGINEER ,ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION KUMHRAR,PATNA *** For the petitioner : M/s Mrigank Mauli, Vinay Mistry, Advocates For the B o a r d : Mr Prakash Kumar, Advocate *** 2 16.03.2010 The grievance of the petitioner is that there was an inspection of his premises on 07.12.2001. Pursuant to inspection, various bills were raised. Petitioner filed various representations protesting against the said inspection and infirmity in the bills drawn pursuant thereto. While those representations remained pending, petitioner has been served with a notice from the Board to pay an amount of Rs 3,51,590.19 P failing which certificate proceedings would be initiated. Upon the writ petition being filed, a counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that way back in the year, 2003 itself for the recovery of the amount, as noticed above, a certificate proceeding has already been initiated which is pending. The notice, as impugned, has been 2 inadvertently issued. The fact remains that a certificate proceeding has been allegedly initiated in which as per petitioner, till date, he has not been noticed for the last seven years. Petitioner, so far as certificate proceedings are concerned, would have his opportunity of raising all objections as to those proceedings before the Court concerned but so far as various representations, which the petitioner had filed as against the bill drawn up pursuant to the inspection which have all remained unattended or at least unresponded they are entitled to have a fair consideration thereof by the authorities of the Board. To make matters easy, I direct petitioner to make a detailed representation afresh against the said inspection and the bill sought to be enforced pursuant thereto raising all objections as in the past or in addition thereto. The concerned General Manager –cum- Chief Engineer would consider the same and decide the same within a period of one month from the date such a representation is filed alongwith a copy of order of this Court. The order would be a speaking order and the same should be communicated to the petitioner. With this observation, the writ petition itself stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)