IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No 19 of 2008 OM PRAKASH KESHARI Versus SRI R S MAHTON & ORS ----------- 4 11.09.2008 The petitioner points out that in view of the supplementary counter affidavit filed today it is disclosed that the electric connection is being denied to the petitioner on two counts, (i) because there were dues and (ii) that petitioner was found illegally extracting electric energy for which a first information report had been lodged pursuant to inspection conducted on 26.02.2007. He submits that both these grounds are wrong inasmuch as so far as dues are concerned, they are not of the petitioner but of his earlier tenant as admitted in the counter affidavit itself in whose name the meter stood. As such, it cannot be enforced against the petitioner. With regard to first information report, he submits that inspite of filing rejoinder that there was no such first information report and no Police Station Case number has been disclosed, nothing is being disclosed even in the supplementary counter affidavit. As such, it is submitted that the said inspection is a concocted report which is not based on any physical inspection. Be that as it may, as the reasons have now been disclosed which was the only order passed on the writ petition, petitioner would be at a liberty to challenge the said reasons on all grounds that may be available before him before appropriate forum, as advised. With this observation, the contempt application stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)