The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.4.2008 passed in Case No.204 (H)/19/07 by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under section 42(5) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 whereby it upheld the excess connected load found at the time of inspection on 9.5.2006. The petitioner also prays for quashing the bill dated 14.6.2006 issued under clause 8(d) of the Board’s notification no.477 dated 29.10.2002 as well as bill dated 10.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.12,55,626/-, besides, demanding additional security of Rs.2,21,850/-.

2. During pendency of this application the petitioner filed I.A. No.6773 of 2011, wherein the petitioner sought amendment in the prayer made in the writ application. The petitioner stated in the Interlocutory Application that during the pendency of the writ application a certificate case being Certificate Case No.1/2011-12 was initiated for a demand of Rs.21,27,441.06 paise which according to the petitioner includes principally the demand arriving out of penal bill raised on the basis of inspection report dated 9.5.2006. The petitioner has prayed to add the prayer of staying further proceedings in the Certificate case as the liability has not finally been determined and still a dispute to it.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application would be part of the relief sought for in the main writ application.

4. Before I consider the rival contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief. The petitioner is a cold storage which initially started with a sanctioned load of 23 HP in 1961. Over the years the sanctioned load of the unit was enhanced and prior to 1.2.2003 the unit was having load of 100 KVA under HTS-I category of Tariff. On the application of the petitioner the reduction of load from 100 KVA under HTS-I Tariff to 94 HP under LTIS Tariff was allowed on fulfilling certain terms and conditions that the two compressors and one motor of the Unit would be removed.

5. On 9.5.2006 the Board made an inspection and the connected load was found 120.5 HP as against sanctioned load of 94 HP. A copy of the inspection report is annexed at Annexure-3 as well as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the Board. According to the inspection report, two compressors which were directed to be removed and which the petitioner had admitted to have removed were not removed. The Board also lodged a case of theft in which final form in favour of petitioner was filed. The petitioner challenged the inspection report in C.W.J.C.No.6756 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.2.2007 with liberty to the petitioner to move Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum with further liberty to move an application for connection of energy line. The petitioner filed an application before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum giving rise to Consumer Case No.65 of 2007. The Forum vide interim order asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.3 lacs as a condition precedent for energisation of electric supply. The petitioner deposited the said amount and the electric supply was restored. The Forum by its order dated 7.6.2007 disposed of the application upholding the inspection report and the Forum further asked the petitioner to seek conversion of his tariff category from low tension to high tension and to execute an agreement. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again moved this court in C.W.J.C.No.12775 of 2007.

6. The petitioner’s case in the writ application was that the Forum had found several irregularities in the inspection report dated 9.5.2006. Further more, the Forum gave a categorical finding that C.T. connection of all the three C.T. wires were opened, still the Forum noticed that the inspection report shows that meter was running. The petitioner contended that the Forum itself observed that when all the three C.T. wires were opened, there was no question of running of meter. This court vide order dated 3.12.2007 passed in