IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2097 of 2002 PARASH MISTRI, Son of Late Sitaram Mistri, resident of village-Harrakh, P.S.-Begusarai Town, District-Begusarai. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Secretary. 2. The Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Begusarai. ……….Respondents. ----------- 6/ 16.11.2009 This case was passed for the day on the previous date. Today also counsel for the petitioner prays for pass over. In view of the relief prayed and nature of order this Court proposes that there is no need to give further adjournment. Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to correct the electric bill of petitioner from March, 2001 and onwards. The petitioner is a consumer of respondent Board bearing Consumer No. BGS-N/LTIS/2920, and runs his Small Scale Industries Unit in the district of Begusarai. Petitioner’s case is that he was running the aforesaid unit from the year 1973 and having 3 H.P. Electrical Motor, granted by Letter No. 1556 dated 07.07.1973 contained in annexure-1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the request, the load capacity was enhanced from 3 H.P. to 5 H.P. by letter No. 2716 dated 20.12.1976. The petitioner is aggrieved by electrical bill for the month of April, 2001 in which an arrear of Rs. 57,105.97/- was shown. It is further submitted that in the moth of March, he got a bill for Rs. 2,947.80/- which was duly deposited by him on 2 29.03.2001. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Board. Mr. Vinay Kriti Singh, counsel appearing for the Board submits that at the request of the petitioner and on his application dated 02.04.1985, the load was enhanced from 5 H.P. to 10 H.P. Furthermore, a new agreement was also entered in between the parties. On -1.02.1992 inspection was made, in which it was found that the welding set motor installed in the premises, was without name plates. Counsel for the Board submits that in view of the provisions made in 1991 Tariff, all the motors without name plates, were deemed to be of 15 HP capacities and as such bills on such enhanced load from 10 HP to 20 HP were issued. Counsel for the Board submits that there is no illegality in the bill. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that petitioner has not stated in the writ application that on his application the load was enhanced to 10 HP. Furthermore, the Board, charges consumers who are running motor without number plates at the load provided in the 1991 Tariff. In this view of the matter there is no need to pass any positive order. Petitioner is directed to raise his grievance before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Samastipur. This application is disposed of. Sanjeet/ (S.P. Singh, J.)