IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3862 of 2002 M/S KUSHWAHA COLD STORAGE, Digha Ghat, Patna, a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Sri Anandi Prasad, son of Late Moti Lal, resident of Gola Road, Danapur, Patna. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, a body constituted under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 having its office at Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Chairman. 2. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, PESU (West), Danapur, Patna. 3. The Assistant Electrical Engineer (Rev.), Electrical Supply Division, PESU (West), Danapur, Patna. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 16/ 25.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent Board. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for quashing the Bill dated 16.01.2002, as contained in Annexure-4, so far it relates to arrears of fuel surcharge and also for quashing the notice issued under the signature of respondent no.3 vide letter no. 179 dated 02.02.2002, as contained in Annexure-7, issued under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The matter came before this Court for consideration on 21.03.2002. This Court after hearing the parties observed that the Board may supply the details of the bills to the petitioner. It was, however, directed that he would appear before the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Supply Division, Danapur, Patna, Respondent no.2 on 26th March, 2002 with a copy of the order of this Court, whereupon the concerned Electrical Executive Engineer would supply the details of the Bill with break-up amounts. This Court further directed that if petitioner makes a deposit of Rs. Two lacs on or before 29th March, 2002, the electricity supply will not be - 2 - discontinued. The petitioner states that he deposited the amount in question but however, he did not receive the break-up of the bills from the aforesaid Executive Engineer. This Court on 01.03.2007 noted the submission of the learned counsel for the Board that if the petitioner has approached the Board under O.T.S. scheme, the question of the Board not considering the relief in accordance with law does not arise at all. This Court further observed that the petitioner, if so advised, will be at liberty to file any fresh application under the O.T.S. scheme. Learned counsel submits that though he filed application earlier under the O.T.S. scheme. He filed again another application in view of order dated 01.03.2007. It appears that the application of the petitioner is still pending and he has not been even given the break-up of the bills. The respondent Board is directed to give the break-up of bills including delayed surcharge as ordered earlier by this Court on 21.03.2002 and would dispose of the application within two months by a speaking order. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)