IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12173 of 2008 RAVIKANT KUMAR, SON OF LATE SUDESHWAR SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAUBATPUR, POLICE STATION NAUBATPUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NAUBATPUR, ATTA CHAKI MILL, AZAMA ROAD, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PATNA(RURAL) IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. 4. THE ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PATNA( RURAL), DISTRICT PATNA. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY, PHULWARISHARIF, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. 6. ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, POSTED AS METER READER/SUPERVISOR, IN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, PATNA(RURAL), SITUATED AT PHULWARISHARIF, P.S. PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT PATNA. For the petitioner : Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate. ----------- 05. 06.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bihar State Electricity Board(hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the provisional bill dated 29.7.2008, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.90,610/- on the basis of the 8 H.P. load found in his premises. It is submitted on his behalf that provisional bill of Rs.90,610/- has been raised in the light of the inspection of the premises of the petitioner by the STF team of the Board held on 18.7.2008. Report submitted by the STF team could not be the basis for increasing the load of the petitioner as STF team never got the strength of the motor available in the premises of the petitioner - 2 - verified and without verification of the strength of the motor the conclusion of the STF that the load of the petitioner was 8 H.P. is wholly misconceived. 3. Aforesaid submission is being refuted by the counsel for the Board with reference to the inspection report of the STF team, which is contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Perusal whereof indicates that after the inspection petitioner also put his signature over the report. With reference to the said report it is submitted by the counsel for the Board that as the contents of the report was not disputed by the petitioner at the time of inspection, the contents of the report should be accepted by this Court. 4. In rejoinder counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was forced to sign on the dotted lines by the members of the STF team which also comprised of the police personnel and on threat of being harassed petitioner put his signature on the report. When such submission was made by the counsel for the petitioner this Court objectively examined the submission and noticed that the report is dated 18.7.2008, the writ petition was affidavited on 11.8.2008 but in the petition no such averment was made by the petitioner that he was forced to sign on the dotted line by the member of the STF team. It is thus quite apparent that the submission of the petitioner in rejoinder is the submission raised by the learned counsel to suit the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, I am not inclined to rely on the same. Petitioner, having signed the inspection report without any objection, is bound by the contents of the report. The order dated 8.9.2008 - 3 - passed in the writ petition of Khaza Lal Prasad bearing C.W.J.C. No.11773 of 2009 directing the Electrical Superintending Engineer to decide the quantum of load available in the premises of the petitioner may not be of any assistance to the petitioner as from the order dated 8.9.2009 it does not appear that Khaza Lal Prasad also signed over the report and notwithstanding such signature of Khaza Lal Prasad this Court directed the Electrical Superintending Engineer to verify the load available in the premises of Khaza Lal Prasad. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)