SRI BIR ISPAT Vs. BIHAR ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Birendra Poddar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after receipt of Annexure 5, he protested by Annexure 6 dated 22.3.1996, stating therein that no inspection whatsoever was made in the premises of the petitioner nor a copy of the inspection report was handed over to its representative and, therefore, the petitioner requested the respondents to revise the bills raised at 42 H.P. Learned Counsel further submitted that no inspection whatsoever was held by the officers of respondent No. 1 at any point of time and, therefore they could not have raised the bills at 42 H.P. and the bills could have been raised at 10 H.P. load, which was already given to the petitioner pursuant the agreement entered in between the parties. Leaned counsel has drawn inattention to Annexure 5,. From Annexure 5, it appears that on 22.2.1996 the premises of the petitioner was inspected by one Sri Surendra Nath Choubey Superintending Engineer, Sri Chandrama Tiwary, Electrical Executive Engineer Sri Birendra Kumar Choudhary, Assistant Electrical Engineer and Sri Nityai Singh, Assistant Electrical Engineer (Tech.). From Annexure 5, it fur the appears that the inspection was held in absentia of either of the partners of the Firm or their representative. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that even as the face of Annexure 5 it does not appear that the inspection in question was held in the premises of the petitioner within the knowledge of the petitioner Learned Counsel has further referred to Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Annexure A to the counter affidavit is said to be the inspection report dated 22.2.96. Learned Counsel further submitted that a least in the inspection report, the officers of respondent No. 1 who are alleges to have inspected the premises of the petitioner would have signed the same and the signature of the representative of the petitioner would have also beer there. From Annexure A, it appears that it was prepared and signed only by, Sri Chandrama Tiwary, Electrical Executive Engineer, Giridih (South).

(3.) IT further appears from Annexure 5 that the petitioner was merely informed about the inspection report and about the fact that it was using a load of 42 H.P. but admittedly, a copy of the inspection report as contained in Annexure A was not annexed with the communication. As a rule of prudence it was incumbent upon the respondents to supply a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner alongwith communication as contained in Annexure 5. It further appears that immediately after receipt of Annexure 5, the petitioner lodged his protest by memo as contained in Annexure 6. It is submitted that no attention whatsoever was given by the concerned respondents towards the protest lodged by the petitioner as contained in Annexure 6.