IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.365 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 15653 of 2008 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.1906 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.365 of 2010 ==================================================== The Bihar State Electricity Board appearing through its Chairman, Bailey Road, P.S.Kotwali, Town & District-Patna. …. …. Respondent/Appellant Versus 1. M/S Suryadaya Industries Pvt.Ltd. having its Works 3rd Phase, Industrial Area, Fatuha , District -Patna Appearing through its Director Ujjawal Agarwal, Son Of Sri Gridhari Lal Agarwal, R/O Urvarsi Apartment, Kankarbagh, Road, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, Town & District- Patna. …. …. Petitioner/Respondent 2. The Head, Special Task Force Bihar State Electricity Board, Bailey Road. P.S-Kotwali, Town & District-Patna 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Patna Electrical Circle, R'Block, P.S. Sachivalaya, Town & District-Patna 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Fatuha Electric Supply Division, Fatuha,District-Patna 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Fatuha, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Fatuha, District-Patna. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. S.S.Rekhi, Advocate ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4. 27.8.2010. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 are the officials of the appellant Bihar State Electricity Board. Let the names of respondent nos. 2 to 5 be transposed as appellant nos. 2 to 5. Interlocutory Application No. 1906 of 2010: - - 2 - This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellants for condonation of delay of 7 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 365 of 2010: - With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard and finally decided. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the appellant Bihar State Electricity Board against the judgment and order dated 17th November 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 15653 of 2008. The only challenge is against the observations made by the learned single Judge in respect of the inspection report made by the officials of the Board. The impugned observations are reproduced hereinbelow:- “Coming to the question of rating, Mr.Vinay Kirti Singh submits that the inspection report was prepared in presence of the consumer. He has received the same after signing the same and as such it is not open to the consumer to dispute the same. So far this argument is concerned, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the submission of learned counsel for the Board. The signature of the consumer on inspection report is to the fact of receiving the report and not to the authenticity or correctness of the report or the - 3 - contents of the report as drawn up by the authorities. The signature of the consumer appended does not bind the consumer as to the contents of the report rather it is only in respect of receipt thereof. Thus, the authorities are still bound to establish the correctness of the report, as drawn by them. This is more so, when authorities exercising statutory power and drawn statutory report, the consumer has no option but to sign it. Consumer is not a technical person to make any appraisal then and there. His signature is only proof of having received the report. Thus, merely because petitioner received the report could not be conclusive of what is written in the report. It is because of this fact that certain rights are provided to consumer because if once the report signed by the consumer was the ultimate document then no dispute could be raised as against the inspection. The statute/ regulation itself contemplates dispute and thus denied finality to the inspection report.” Learned Advocate Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh appears for the appellants. He has submitted that the aforesaid observation is totally unwarranted and against the statutory provisions. He has submitted that the inspection is carried out in presence of the consumer. The inspection report is the statement of state of affairs at the time of inspection. The state of affairs recorded in the inspection report, therefore, cannot be challenged by the consumer. We do agree with the learned Advocate. The statement of the state of affairs made in the inspection report carried out in presence of the consumer and existence of such state of affairs cannot be challenged by the consumer. - 4 - For the aforesaid reason, we set aside the above referred observation made by the learned single Judge. The Appeal stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)