Judgment:
Narayan Roy, J.
1. Heard Mr. Birendra Poddar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents.
By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to revise/rectify all the monthly bills raised for the months of February, 1996 to November 1996, as contained in Annexure-5/1, 7 and 8 series, by which bills have been raised at 42 H.P. under category LTIS-II instead of raising the same at 10 H.P. under category LTIS-I. It is submitted by Mr. Biren Poddar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that by virtue of the communication as contained in Annexure-5, the respondents informed the petitioner that on the date of inspection dated 22.2.96 it was found using load of 42 H.P. and, accordingly, the bills was to be raised at 42 H.P.
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. Normally when inspection was held by more than one officers of the authorities concerned, all should sign the same to make it more authentic. Even as per the requirement of Principles of natural justice when inspection, aforesaid, was done a copy of the same would have been handed over either to the petitioner or to its agent, or even in case when no body was present, they could have informed them about the inspection at the spot and, therefore, they could have inspected the premises of the petitioner in presence of the petitioner or its representative. Ultimately, this has not been done in this case.
4. 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.
5. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the inspection report as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit cannot be doubted as it was prepared by the Electrical Executive Engineer and the petitioner was found using a load of 42 H.P. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, however, has not been able to justify the actions of the authorities as to under what circumstances the inspection was held in absentia and why a copy of the inspection report was not communicated to the petitioner when he was informed vide letter has stained in Annexure-5. Mr. Rajendra Prasad has also not been able to justify ; to why the officers for respondent No. 1 where names have been disclosed Annexure-5 had inspected the premises in question and had found the stationer using 42 H.P. have not signed the inspection report.
6. Respondents No. 1 and its officers are State under Article 12 of the institution. The action of the State or its representatives must be tested on le touch stone of reasonableness under Article and they must appear to be easonable.
7. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the facts and rcumstances of the case, the inspection report as contained in Annexure-A to le counter affidavit, cannot be said to be reasonable for the reasons afore mentioned. Further the action of the respondents by keeping mun over the rotes lodged by the petitioner, speaks a volume against them about the authenticity of the inspection report as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The purported inspection report, as contained in Annexure-A 3 the counter affidavit, therefore, in my opinion cannot be given a legal action and the same cannot be said to be operatives.
8. Under the circumstances and for the reasons aforesaid, I allow this application and direct the respondents concerned to revise all the monthly bills raised since February, 1996 on wards considering the load of the petitioner at 10 H.P. and only after rectifying the bills, the respondents, if so desired, may inspect the premises of the petitioner and if ultimately it is found that the petitioner is having more load than 10 H.P. they will proceed in the matter in according with law after serving a copy of the inspection report upon the petitioner.
9. From the order dated 17.3.1997 it appears interim order was passed redirecting the respondents not to disconnect the electric connection of the petitioner subject to payment of admitted dues amounting to Rs. 47,000/- and add. It is submitted that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 47,000/- and odd as against the bills raised by the respondents. The amounts deposited by the petitioner, therefore, shall be adjusted towards the bills and thereafter, he bills shall be raised afresh.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as o costs.