K. C. JAGADEB ROY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner runs a cinema hall under the name and style of 'jayashree Talkies' at Badambadi and obtained the supply of the electricity from the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'oseb') for running its business by entering into an agreement with OSEB for such supply measured at 110 Kw. as contract demand. The line was charged on 10-1-1985. Later, on 14-5-1988 the petitioner made a representation before the Executive Engineer (Electrical) City Distribution Division, Orissa at Ranihat, Cuttack, the present Opposite Party No. 2 for reduction of the contract demand from 110 Kw. to 85 Kw. An inspection was made by the officers of the OSEB and the inspection report was submitted on 17-9-1988 duly signed by the Junior Engineer (Electrical), the S. D. O. of the concerned area with the signature of the customer which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to this writ application which states that the connected load was 85. 95 Kw. as checked on 17-9-1985. The representation of the petitioner dated 14-5-1988 was not accompanied by a test report from a licenced contractor and the petitioner latter filed a test report in the proper form on 29-10-1988 showing the connected load as 85. 95 Kw. which according preliminary counter-affidavit of the opposite parties was received by them on 1-11-1988. Since the petitioner received a notice dated 25-11-1988 from the opposite parties threatening disconnection on failure to pay the outstanding sum of money against the petitioner, the petitioner filed the writ application in this Court bearing O. J. C. No. 4046 of 1988 challenging the same. By order dated 5-1-1989 this Court directed opposite parties No. 2 and No. 4 namely the Executive Engineer (Electrical), City Distribution Division, Ranihat, Cuttack and the Superintending Engineer, Orissa, Bhubaneswar respectively to dispose of the petitioner's application/representation dated 14-5-1988 within one month. Though the test report in proper form had been filed on 29-10-1988, opposite party No. 2 sent a fresh notice dated 1-2-1989 to the petitioner to submit another test report for consideration of the reduction of the contract demand as per the directives of the High Court of Orissa. Though the test report in proper form had been filed on 29-10-1988, opposite party No. 2 sent a fresh notice dated 1-2-1989 to the petitioner to submit another test report for consideration of the reduction of the contract demand as per the directives of the High Court of Orissa. ( 2 ) WE do not find any reason for which this notice dated 1-2-1989 was sent by the opposite party No. 2 to the petitioner as the direction of this Court was to dispose of the representation/application of the petitioner dated 14-5-1988 which was already supported by a test report in proper form, prior to the date of this notice. Opposite party No. 4, namely, the Superindending Engineer also issued a letter on 1-2-1989 to the petitioner on 4-2-1989 and on 6-2-89, without waiting for any test report, if at all it was necessary. Opposite party No. 2 intimated the petitioner about the reduction of the demand from 110 Kw. to 92 Kw. without the test report as was required by him and was called for by his letter dated 1-2-1989. The legality of this action need not be discussed since the petitioner by his letter dated 16-2-1989 conceded to this offer and accepted this demand at 92 Kw. , but not from 1-2-1989 as was indicated in their letter but conceded to that reduction with effect from May, 1988 since he made the application on 14-5-1988 on the basis of which this inquiry was being conducted. ( 3 ) THE only case that is to be decided by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to this reduction of the contract demand from 110 Kw. to 92 Kw. with effect from May, 1988. The supply of electricity even though is under a contract is indeed by way of service rendered to the public at large as an item of public utility service. The OSEB, which is a public authority has certain duty to discharge towards the public to whom it supplies electricity. One of such obligations is contained in S. 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which casts obligation on the licensee, in the present case the OSEB to supply electricity to every person in the area of supply, if applied for. Like an individual contractor it does pot have the option to supply electricity to anybody it wishes. One of such obligations is contained in S. 22 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 which casts obligation on the licensee, in the present case the OSEB to supply electricity to every person in the area of supply, if applied for. Like an individual contractor it does pot have the option to supply electricity to anybody it wishes. Accordingly, since the right to get the supply of electricity is a matter of right of every individual residing with in the area of supply, the threatening of disconnection should be very cautiously exercised by the licensee though it is so authorised under S. 24 of the Electricity Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 24 of the Electricity Act authorises the licensee to make disconnection of the supply of energy when a person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum other than a charge for energy due to him in respect of the supply of energy. The charge of energy obviously would be the charge for the actual supply of energy made and also the demand of any sum of money due from a consumer to the licensee in respect of the supply of energy would also be of the legal foundation for such action. When a consumer disputes that the supply is not made as was required under the contract and that he should not be called upon to pay that amount of money even though there was initially a contract demand for a definite quantum of electricity, it is the duty of the licensee (namely the OSEB in this case) to immediately look into the grievances of the consumer and on being satisfied that there existed good reason or basis for a reduced demand, it should enter into a fresh contract demand With the consumer in substitution of the one in existence and should not delay such inquiry at their end which otherwise will burden the consumer with payments of money for energy not consumed by him. ( 5 ) IN the present case, on 17-9-1988 the inspection report of the Junior Engineer and the S. D. O. of the area showed that the connected load was 85. 9 K. w. instead of 110 Kw. ( 5 ) IN the present case, on 17-9-1988 the inspection report of the Junior Engineer and the S. D. O. of the area showed that the connected load was 85. 9 K. w. instead of 110 Kw. If this inspection report was of no value and was not intended to be acted upon, we do not understand why this inspection was made by the two officers of the OSEB wasting their time for no purpose and when a test report in the proper form signed by a licensed contractor was filed on 29-10-1988 and this court directed on 5-1-1989 to dispose of that application of the petitioner within the stipulated time, in our opinion, there was no necessity to call for another report unless it was, intended by O. P. No. 2 and No. 4 to unnecessarily delay their decision by some pretext or other. In the preliminary counter, the opposite parties have given reasons that such a report was called for because the petitioner had made frequent additions and alterations on the installation without the knowledge of the authorities. This fact, however, has been challenged by the petitioner in his rejoinder. In the rejoinder the petitioner has denied that allegation of the opposite parties that any such additions and alteration on the installation were being made and asserted that there was no joint verification wherein such addition and alteration were found. Though in ordinary course of event, we would have allowed this contract demand to be effective from the date of application by the petitioner, in the present case, since the application was filed by the petitioner without being accompanied by a test report which was required under the rules, we allow this reduced demand to be effective from 1st of November 1988, the test report having been submitted to the authorities by 29-10-1988. The inspection report dated 17-9-1988 of the Junior Engineer and the S. D. O. (Electrical) also supports the test report submitted by the petitioner on 29-10-1988. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ application is allowed. The notice as per Annexure-7 is quashed to the extent that the contract demand which was reduced from 110 Kw, to 92 Kw, instead of being effective from 1-2-1989 would be effective from 1/11/1988. ( 6 ) IN the result, the writ application is allowed. The notice as per Annexure-7 is quashed to the extent that the contract demand which was reduced from 110 Kw, to 92 Kw, instead of being effective from 1-2-1989 would be effective from 1/11/1988. In consequence, we also quash the notice as per Annexure-2 requiring the petitioner to make payments of the outstanding dues as indicated in their notice but direct that the Opposite Party No. 2 shall issue a fresh notice of demand to the petitioner after making a calculation of the outstanding dues, if any, on the basis of this order giving the petitioner reasonable time for payment. In the, circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 7 ) R. C. PATNAIK Actg. C. J. : -. I agree. Order accordingly.