IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15715 of 2001 RAJAN PRASAD VISHWAKARMA Son of Late Banashi Prasad Bishwakarma, Resident of Mohala- Kapasia (Township) P.S., Town, Distt.- Begusarai. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATNA. 2. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electrical Supply Division, Begusarai. 3. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, (office of the Asst. Electrical Engineer), Begusarai. . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 7/ 01.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Board. The petitioner prays for direction to the respondent authorities not to charge Rs. 39,863.90 as Audit charge in terms of demand made vide impugned bill dated 25.04.2001, as contained in Annexure-4. Earlier one Nand Kishore Vishkarma, brother of the petitioner, was running a small workshop, having an Electric supply connection bearing consumer no. K.P.A. 166 with a connected load of 8 H.P. The electric line was subsequently disconnected on account of non-payment of a sum of Rs. 35,322.36. Thereafter a family partition took place, and petitioner who happens to be the brother of Nand Kishore Vishkarma, on 18.04.1998, filed an application with affidavit for running the aforesaid electrical connection and also agreed to pay any previous dues as well. The respondents vide Annexure-2 bearing letter no. 719 dated 04.06.1998 also informed that electric connection would be transferred in his name provided the dues are cleared. The petitioner states that he cleared the due amount of Rs. 35,322.36. Thereafter respondents entered into an agreement with petitioner vide agreement no. 2/98-99 with effect from 01.09.1998. The petitioner was allowed load of 8 H. P. motors and as such - 2 - 560 units were fixed for the purpose of monthly bill. The petitioner surprisingly received bill dated 25.04.2001, contained in Annexure-4, whereby a further demand of Rs. 42,307.72 was made. The petitioner states that he had paid all the pending bills of his brother and as such the aforesaid bill, which was shown in form of audit charges, was not sustainable. Counsel for the Board submits that petitioner was liable, as per his undertaking, to pay all the electric dues of his brother which has escaped attention earlier. Counsel for the Board further submits that in course of internal audit for the period 1991-92 to 1998-99, it was found that irregular and wrong adjustment have been granted by industrial consumers of the district of Begusarai in regard to running of welding sets. It was further submitted that adjustment was earlier wrongly been made without considering the report of the aforesaid three men committee, as such the demand as contained in Annexure-4 was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a photo copy of letter no. 287 dated 06.02.1995 addressed by Electrical Superintending Engineer to Electrical Executive Engineer, wherein he stated to revise the energy bills of the following consumers which also included the connection bearing K.P.A. 166. After hearing the parties, the issues raised by the two sides are one of facts. If the petitioner has any grievance, he may approach the board under Clause 15(4) (d). In case, the petitioner makes a complaint in writing to the authorized officer of the Board in terms of - 3 - Clause 15(4) (d), the authorities will dispose of the same within a period of two months thereafter. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)