The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for inspections by the electricity board to be conducted in the presence of the consumer or their representative, and the involvement of independent witnesses if the consumer is uncooperative.

1. By Court: Both the writ applications are heard together and disposed of by this order.

2. In W.P. (C) No. 1992 of 2005, the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B.) has challenged the order dated 09.12.2004 passed in Case No. 28 of 2004 by Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred as 'Forum'), whereby and whereunder the Forum declared that the inspections conducted by the J.S.E.B. is not in accordance with law, therefore it quashed the bill raised on the basis of aforesaid. The Forum further directed the Executive Engineer (Supply) to raise revised bill in favour of M/s M.R. Industries Ltd. (Consumer) on the basis of sanctioned load of 8 H.P. and Consumer was directed to pay the same within the period stipulated in the bill.

In the W.P. (C) No. 3105 of 2007, the petitioner -M/s M.R. Industries Ltd. (Consumer) prayed that a direction be issued commanding the Jharkhand State Electricity Board to implement the direction given by the Forum in Case No. 28 of 2004 and for restoration of electrical line.

3. It is worth mentioning that during the pendency of this writ application the electrical connection of the petitioner restored by the J.S.E.B. as directed by this Court.

4. It appears that M/s M.R. Industries Ltd. took LTI electrical connection from the Board in the year 1975 having a contract load of 8 H.P. It then appears that the relation between Consumer and Board was smooth till 2000. However, in the month of June, 2000 the Consumer received a bill of Rs. 20,186.06. It is stated that after receiving the said bill, the Consumer made representation and requested the Board to make necessary correction in the impugned bill. However, as directed by the Executive Engineer, Consumer made ad-hoc payment. It is stated that inspite of the fact that the Consumer had made ad-hoc payment, his electrical connection was disconnected on 03.08.2000. Thereafter, the Consumer made another ad-hoc payment of Rs. 5,484/-and then only his electrical connection restored on 06.09.2000. It is stated that on 25.08.2000, the Anti Power Theft Team of the Board inspected the premises of the Consumer and found that the Consumer is consuming electricity at the load of 23.85 H.P. Accordingly, the Board issued a revised bill on 13.04.2001 asking the Consumer to pay Rs. 13,180.06. Later on, the Board issued another bill on 14.09.2001 of Rs. 1,29,787.25. It appears that the aforesaid inspection report and bills challenged by the Consumer in W.P. (C) No. 5446 of 2001. The said writ application disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2001 with a direction to the petitioner (Consumer) to file a representation before the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Jharkhand State Electricity Board and the Executive Engineer (Electrical) has been directed to dispose of the representation by reasoned order, within six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It appears that thereafter Consumer filed a representation and the said representation was disposed of by the Executive Engineer vide order dated 31.12.2001. Against the said order, the Consumer filed another writ application vide W.P. (C) No. 3060 of 2002. The aforesaid writ application disposed of with a direction to the Consumer to file application before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, J.S.E.B. Accordingly, the Consumer filed application before the Forum, which was registered as Case No. 28 of 2004. The aforesaid case was disposed of by the Forum vide judgment dated 09.12.2004. Against that, the Board filed W.P.(C) No. 1992 of 2005, whereas the Consumer filed W.P. (C) No. 3105 of 2007 for a direction to implement the said order.

5. It is submitted by Sri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited that on the inspection of the premises of the Consumer, the Inspecting team found that Consumer was using grinder drilling machines, welding machines, compressor machine etc. which could not be run by the sanctioned load of 8 H.P. It is submitted th