1. The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), which is a Transmission and Distributing Licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003, has approached this Court by filing the present writ application, questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 13.02.2012 passed by the learned Chairperson, Bihar Human Rights Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as Commission) in File No. BHRC/COMP.2544/09, whereby the Chairman of the Board has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the Respondent No.2 within a period of one month, holding that electricity is an absolute requirement of life which the Respondent no.2 was deprived of by the Board for several years. From the facts incorporated in the order dated 13.2.2012 passed by learned Chairperson, Bihar Human Rights Commission, Patna, it appears that Respondent No.2 approached the Commission claiming compensation for loss, harassment and mental agony caused by the officials of the Board alleging that inspite of directions issued by the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, the Board was not restoring his Electricity connection and he was without connection after its unauthorized disconnection since 30.9.1995.

2. Respondent no.2 has a house near Saguna More, Danapur which had electric connection of 0.66 KW load for domestic consumption. As per the pleadings in the writ application itself, a portion of the house was let out to the tenant in the year 1992. The lessee has been described as Yashwant Kumar in the impugned order. As per the case of the Board, on 25.10.1994 an Inspection Team of the Board found connected load of 10.067 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.66 KW. Further case of the Board is that there was another inspection on 6.1.1995 which led to the discovery of 23.81 KW load. I hasten to add here that as per the impugned order passed by the learned Chairman, Bihar Human Rights Commission, in second inspection conducted on 6.1.1995 by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Danapur and Assistant Electrical Engineer(supply), Digha the connected load was found to be 2.381 KW and not 23.81 K.W. as pleaded in the writ petition. There is no averment in the writ application to the effect that the finding recorded by the Commission in this regard is incorrect. The case of the Board is that, as during the course of first inspection the connected load was found to be more than sanctioned load, the bill of Rs. 94,889.77 was raised and as the consumer failed to deposit the bill amount, his line was disconnected on 30.9.1995.

3. From the impugned order it appears that the bill amounting to Rs. 94,889.77 was raised on 16.11.1994 and on protest by Respondent no.2 herein, against such billing, a second inspection was conducted in which the connected load was found to be 2.381 KW instead of 10.067 KW. It appears that revised bill for Rs. 53,037.25 was raised subsequently by the Board on 18.12.1996 in place of Rs. 94,889.77. As has been recorded hereinabove, the electric line was disconnected, in the meanwhile, on 30.9.1995 itself for non-payment of bill, i.e. prior to issuance of revised bill based on second inspection.

On 4.7.1997 the Board’s official raided the premises and found electricity being consumed even though the line was disconnected on papers, which resulted into institution of a First Information Report against Respondent no.2 and the tenant Yashwant Kumar vide Danapur P.S. case No. 290 of 1997. Thereafter a punitive bill amounting to Rs. 83,484 was raised against Respondent no.2. From the impugned order of the learned Chairperson of the Commission, it appears that Respondent no.2 approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc. no. 13562 of 1997 and pursuant to a direction, he deposited a sum of Rs. 13,537/-. Simultaneously Respondent no.2 approached the District Consumer Forum, Patna under the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service and praying for determination of dues on the basis of second Inspe