IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9226 of 2002 MD.ABBAS son of late Md. Iliyas, resident of Mohalla Bhaisasoor, P.S. Lahari, Biharsharif, District Nalanda, Proprietor Md. Iliyas Leath Workshop, Ranchi Road, Biharsharif, District- Nalanda. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATNA 2. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. Executive Electrical Engineer, Supply Division, Biharsharif, Nalanda. 5. Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division (Urban) Biharsharif, District Nalanda. 6. Junior Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division (Urban) Biharsharif, Nalanda. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 6/ 11.01.2010 Heard. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the Bill dated 21.03.2001 for extra charge to the tune of Rs. 76,188.60 The petitioner owned and possessed Md. Iliyas Workshop at Ranchi Road, Bihar Sharif, a vide consumer no. LT 00023/H.Q. 6403 since last 30 years. The petitioner submits that on account of poor electric supply, he disposed of his welding transformer of 3 ½ H.P. capacity and on 12.01.1999 he purchased a diesel generator of 8 K.V.A. for Rs. 10,000/- from M/s Keshwari Sharma. He paid the entire price thereof in three installments. After disposing of the welding machine, the petitioner was left with work of Lethe machine, drill, P.V.C. slotter motor having total capacity of 2 H.P. The petitioner on 11.01.2001 filed a representation before respondent no.5 for reduction of load from 6 H.P. to 2 H.P. for which he paid required fee vide receipt no. 447183 dated 11.01.2001. The petitioner deposited the arrears of bill to the tune of Rs. 11,620/- on 09.01.2001. He further submits that respondent no.5 by letter no. 35 dated 17.01.2001 informed - 2 - respondent no.4, Executive Engineer, about the prayer of petitioner for reduction of load to 2 H.P., a copy of aforesaid letter has been annexed as Annexure 5. The petitioner submits that he was surprised that the Board illegally has issued a Bill in respect of reduction of extra load, as contained in Annexure 1. As the dispute relates to raising of extra load. In the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to pass any positive order. However, petitioner if so advised may approach respondent no.4, Executive Engineer for redressal of his grievance. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)