IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.864 of 2010 1. Yogendra Mishra, son of late Manshiva Mishra, resident of Gorakhnath Path, Boring Road, P.S. Kotwali, town and district- Patna Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna through its Secretary. 2. Executive Engineer (Revenue), New Capital Division PESU, Patna 3. Assistant Electrical Engineer (Revenue), New Capital Division, PESU, Patna. ----------- 3 21.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The only grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order being passed by the Electrical Inspector as back as in the year 1999 followed by an order passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Patna dated 19.3.2001 which again was followed by the order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum established under the Electricity Act of 2003 on 19.5.2009, it has taken almost a decade for the respondent-Board to implement the directions and for issuance of bill on an average basis of 192 units per month. He submits that for restoration of electric connection the petitioner had to deposit an amount of more than Rs. 50,000/- and since the respondents have admitted they have realized excess amount and have also admitted that they 2 are adjusting such excess amount in the subsequent bills of the petitioner hence the petitioner is entitled for interest on the said excess amount. No details of the amounts so deposited by the petitioner is mentioned in the writ petition nor the period of retention by the board is spelt out. Albeit, it is mentioned in the counter affidavit that the board upon enquiry has come to a conclusion that an amount of Rs. 27460.52 has been paid in excess by the petitioner and which is being adjusted against the subsequent bills of the petitioner. In the aforesaid view of the matter, no case for interest is being made out. The writ petition is disposed of. Bibhash ( Jyoti Saran, J. )