IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.241 of 2007 RAM CHANDRA PANDIT . Versus THE CHAIRMAN,B.S.E.B & ORS . ----------- 3/ 04/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the respondent Electricity Board. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3024/02 which was dismissed on 20.4.2007. He preferred L.P.A. No.589/07 when liberty was granted to move in review jurisdiction, if so advised. I.A. No.6848/07 has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring this review application. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and the facts as aforesaid, I.A. No.6848/07 stands allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that letter No.1614 dated 14.12.2008 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition was not adequately noticed when this Court held that the welding machine stated to have been operational in his premises did not have a name plate and therefore the Board was justified in raising electricity demand on basis of 15 H.P. as per the tariff policy. He has submitted that Annexure-3 itself makes it apparent that the earlier report submitted by the Assistant - 2 - Electrical Engineer with regard to a 15 H.P. capacity welding set in absence of a name plate was not correct as per the respondents themselves. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board contends that any reduction in the electricity demand has to be effected only from the date of such fresh inspection on 20.11.1998 and not prior to that date as the petitioner may have changed the welding machine or placed a fresh name plate. This Court is satisfied that the appreciation of Annexure-3 by the Court at the stage of writ jurisdiction was not appropriate. On a careful consideration of the report dated 14.12.1998 at Annexure-3 it transpires that earlier the Assistant Electrical Engineer had submitted a report of 15 H.P. capacity of the welding set in absence of a name plate. The consumers protested. The matter was referred to the Electrical Chief Engineer for verification of the welding sets. On orders of the Superintending Engineer, fresh inspection was carried out by the Executive Engineer on 18.12.1994 and 3.2.1995 for recovery of energy bills. The bills were revised for 8 consumers. Some consumers were left out due to paucity of time and/or other reasons. The report states that they had been requesting for re-verification of their welding sets also. Such fresh inspection was carried out on - 3 - 18.11.1998 and 20.11.1998. The fresh inspection report with regard to the welding set of the petitioner is appended at Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the respondent Board classifying his welding set as of 2.5 K.V.A. which, learned counsel for the Board informs the Court, is approximate to 3 H.P. The review application has to be allowed and the Board is directed to raise revised bills in accordance with the sanctioned loads and not on any premise of a 15 H.P. connected load for a welding set. Needless to state that the fate of the certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the basis of his allegedly running a welding machine of 15 H.P. shall now have to be decided in accordance with the sanctioned load of the petitioner. The application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)