R.A.Sharma, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the electricity bills for the months of February, 1996 to November, 1996, raised on the basis of 42 H.P, bad under category LTIS-II, instead of raising the same at 10 H.P. under category LT1S-1, the sole respondent herein, namely, M/s. Sri Bir Ispat (hereinafter to be referred to as the consumer) filed C.W.J.C. No. 148 of 1997 (K) before this Court. The said writ petition having been allowed, the appellant Bihar State Electricity Board and its officials (hereinafter referred to as the Board) have filed this appeal.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The consumer, a partnership firm, is running a small scale industrial unit situated at Mohanpur, Tundi Road, Giridih, for processing of iron scrap. It applied for 10 H.P. electrical energy under Low Tension Tariff before the Board, which was sanctioned vide letter dated 17.8.1995. An agreement in connection therewith was also executed between the Board and the consumer.

4. The consumer received a registered letter dated 8.3.1996 from the Board mentioning that at the time of inspection of its premises on 22.2.1996-the total load of 41.28 H.P. was found. The consumer was accordingly advised to enter into an agreement of 42 H.P. load, instead of 10 H.P. earlier entered into on 24.9.1995. The consumer was further directed to deposit the additional security. Alone with the said letter a bill for the month of February, 1996, for 68,494.05 paise prepared on the basis of 42 H.P. load was also sent to it for payment. The consumer raised objection against the said letter, the bill and the notice of demand denying the claim of the Board of inspection of its premises by their officials on 22.2.1996 and requesting for correction of the said bill on the basis of 10 H.P. load. But no action was taken on the said objection of the consumer. The Board sent bills for the subsequent months to the consumer regularly on the basis of 42 H.P. load, against which the consumer continued to make representations. Ultimately, the consumer asked the Board to supply the copy of the alleged inspection report dated 22.2.1996, which request too was not complied with. On receipt of such objections, and representations, the consumers premises was again inspected by the officials of the Board on 30.10.1996, on which date it was found having contracted load of 10 H.P. The consumer pursuant to the subsequent inspection report requested the Board for correction of all the bills raised on the basis of 42 H.P. from February, 1996 onward and for issuance of fresh bills for the said period on the basis of 10 H.P. load. The Board not having acceded to the said request the consumer has filed the writ petition.

5. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding, inter alia, that the inspection report dated 22.2.1996 was not signed by all the four officials of the Board, who conducted the inspection and instead it has been signed by only one of them that the inspection was neither conducted in presence of the consumer or its representative nor was the copy of the inspection report given to the consumer or its agent before issuing the impugned bills. The learned Single Judge, accordingly, while allowing the writ petition directed the Board to revise all the monthly bills raised since February, 1996 onwards on the basic of 10 H.P. load. The Board was, however, given liberty to inspect the premises of the consumer afresh, and, if ultimately it is found that the consumer is using more than 10 H.P. load, to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, after serving a copy of the inspection report on it. The amount of Rs. 47,000.00 deposited by the consumer by virtue of the interim order passed in the writ petition was directed to be adjusted towards the bills, which may be raised afresh.

6. The learned Counsel for the Board has made two submissions in support of the appeal, namely, (i) there is either any provision in the Tariff of 1993 (hereinafter to be refe