1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.408 OF 2008. Smt.Sushila W/o Suryadas Bhandari through G.P.A. Suryadas S/o Dharmaji Bhandari ... Appellant. Versus Maharahstra State Electricity Board, through its Executive Engineer, Urban Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondent. ... Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.H.Joshi, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The present appellant is the original plaintiff had filed the suit challenging the 2 demand notice issued by the M.S.E.B. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit. 2. Mr.Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is the case where the meter was intermittently faulty and he had applied for referring the meter for inspection and no action has been taken and supplementary Bill has been issued and that too without verifying the original bills. 3. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the bills impugned are not issued on the ground that the meter is faulty but the flying squad of the Respondent found that the plaintiff was sanctioned load of 1.20 KV and the connected load was found to be 6.40 KV. In view of the fact that the connected load was more than sanctioned load, the Respondent issued the bills and there is no illegality committed by the Respondent. 4. Both the Courts have considered this aspect and have held that the bills are issued to 3 the appellant on account of the fact that the flying squad found the connected load to be in much excess than the sanctioned load. In such circumstances, there was no necessity to refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector. 5. Concurrent findings of facts are recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa408.08 4