Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (a) For a direction to respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 for making correction in the bills for the month of January, 1992 and afterwards. (b) For direction to respondent No. 4 for restoring the connection No. A/C No. 9-17606019/62339 and A/C No. 9-17606920/62338. (c) For any other relief or reliefs which the petitioner is entitled for. 2. The petitioner is a owner of a workshop having one leath machine with weilding. The firm is situated at new market, Patna. It has got two connections from Bihar Electricity Board-one for supply of electrical energy of 220 volt and the other is of 440 volt. The said connections were obtained on 22-8-1973 and 23-1-1976 respectively. The petitioner purchased the premises in question on 24-1-1978. In the year 1988 he applied for supply of electrical energy of 1 H.P. for running the leath machine which was granted. On 10-8-1992 both the electrical connection of the petitioner were disconnected. 3. According to the petitioner he paid all the bills from December, 1991, However, on 14-12-1991 an alleged inspection was made in his premises and a report was submitted to the effect that the load installed therein is 11 H.P., a copy of the said inspection report is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. Another inspection was held on 27-1-1992 wherein the installed load was found to be 17 B.P. The petitioner thereafter was served with two bills-one for 13 H.P. (Annexure-3 to the writ application) wherein a bill for sum of Rs. 3,758 was raised and another for a mm of Rs. 19,272.19 paise (Annexure-11 to the writ application) on the basis of 5 K.V.A. Petitioner protested against the said bills. However, in February, 1992 a bill for a sum of Rs. 906.62 paise together with arrear of Rs. 3,620 (Annexure-13 to the writ application), in March, 1992 a bill for a sum of Rs. 802 together with the arrear of Rs. 4,536.38 paise (Anaexure-13-A, for April, 1992 a bill for a sum of Rs. 792 and arrear of Rs. 5,339.38 (Annexure-13-B) was issued. In May, 1992, the petitioner received two bills for the said month. One for Rs. 795 and arrear of Rs. 6,137.75 (Annexure-13-C) and another for Rs. 20,732.79. 802 together with the arrear of Rs. 4,536.38 paise (Anaexure-13-A, for April, 1992 a bill for a sum of Rs. 792 and arrear of Rs. 5,339.38 (Annexure-13-B) was issued. In May, 1992, the petitioner received two bills for the said month. One for Rs. 795 and arrear of Rs. 6,137.75 (Annexure-13-C) and another for Rs. 20,732.79. He was also served with the bills for April, 1992 for a sum of Rs. 20,026.16 (Annexure-13-E) and for October, 1992 a bill for a sum of Rs. 10,437.29 (Annexure-13-F). The petitioner has contended that despite the fact that the electrical energy was disconnected on 10-8-1992 he is being sent bills thereafter. 4. Petitioners grievance are two folds. Firstly the test report in respect of weilding machine is incorrect, which would be evident from the test report of the Department of Electrical Engineering, Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, which is part of Annexure-4 to the writ application, wherein it was found that the capacity of the weilding machine is 6 K.V.A. The petitioner, however, has contended that the said report is also not correct and in fact the said weilding machine is of 2 K.V.A. In this case the petitioner has contended that he has been all along charged on the basis that the weilding machine is of 1 K.V.A. There is no reason for holding that the load thereof is 11 H.P. or 17 H.P. The petitioner has, however, submitted that from the facts stated in the writ application as also in the supplementary affidavit, it would appear that wrong bills have been submitted to him from time to time. 5. Mr. Shiva Kirti Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Bihar State Electricity Board, however, submitted that admittedly the sanction ed load of the petitioner was 1 H.P. but the same was once found to be 12 H.P. or 15 H.P. respectively. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of the counter-affidavit which are as follows : 4. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the writ petition need no comments. 5. That with reference to paragraph 4 and 4, it is stated that the same are matters of record and as such need no comments. 8. That with reference to paragraph Nos. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the writ petition need no comments. 5. That with reference to paragraph 4 and 4, it is stated that the same are matters of record and as such need no comments. 8. That with reference to paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the instant writ, it is stated that on 22 1-1992 the petitoners premises was again checked and the load assessed as follows : Lathe-2 H.P. and weilding set 15 H.P.-- Total--I 7 H.P. Accordingly a letter was sent to the petitioner but before raising the bill for the extra load on petitioners request his connected load was re-assessed by the competent authority of the Board and 13 H.P. connected load was accordingly confirmed and that it was on this report that arrears from August, 91 to January, 92 for 12 H.P. of extra load to the tune of Rs. 3,600 was charged in the bill for the month of January, 1992. A difficulty arose in ascertaining to correct load in petitioners premises because the embossed figure of KW on the manufacturers name plate affixed to the weilding machine was old and not clear, {It was checked 2-3 times because of protest from the consumer. Ultimately, because of confusion regarding embossed figure of K.W., it was decided to calculate the load of weilding machine on the basis of Amperes embossed on the name plate, i, e. 250 Amperes as is apparent from Annexure-A which also bears signature of petitioner. The capacity of weilding machine was calculated as per the standard formula given below ; H.P.= Open circuit voltage X current X p. f. --------------- 746 = 45X250X0.8 ------------- 746 = 12 H.P. Since the petitioner has one lathe machine of 1 H.P. motor in addition to 1 weilding machine, his load has been rightly calculated as 13 H.P. 6 It has been stated that calculation has been made on the basis that the ampere of meter 250, whereas the Bihar College of Engineering proceeded on the basis that it is 100 Amp. 7. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the fact that from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, it would appear that even the consumer had put his signature therein and thus he is stopped from questioning the same. 8. It is not in dispute that different authorities at different points of time assessed different load in respect of weilding machine. 9. 7. Learned Counsel drew our attention to the fact that from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, it would appear that even the consumer had put his signature therein and thus he is stopped from questioning the same. 8. It is not in dispute that different authorities at different points of time assessed different load in respect of weilding machine. 9. In this case, there should not be any difficulty in so far as the identification of machine is concerned, inasmuch as all the details thereof can be found out from the report of the Professor of Bihar College of Engineering. Patna, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. 10. In this case, therefore, two quessions arise for consideration, namely, (a) whether the electrical connection of the petitioner for both connection could have been disconnected? (b) whether any disconnection could have been caused on the basis that the weilding set of the petitioner is of a higher capacity. 11. Re. Question (a) : It is now well-settled in view of the phraseology used in Sec. 24 of the Electricity Act that the electrical connection of the consumer can be disconnected only in default of payment by the consumer in relation to the electrical energy in question. 12. In John Earnest Edward and Anr. V/s. Raj Jogendra Chandra Ghose Bahadur, reported in AIR 1935 Calcutta 298. it has clearly been held that recourse of disconnection of electrical energy should be done by way of last resort and only when all the terms and conditions therefor are fulfilled. The aforementioned decision has consistently been followed by this Court not only in relation to electrical connection but also in relation to telephone connection. Reference in this Connection may be made to Chotanavpw Engineering Works (P) Ltd and Anr. V/s. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. reported in 1987 BLT 299, 13. Mr. Shiva Kirti Singh when questioned could not point out to any provision of law which authority the authority of the Bihar State Electricity Board to disconnect the petitioners electrical connection in terms whereof the petitioner has been obtaining supply of electrical energy of 220 volts. 14. The Board being a public authority discharge Governmental function. A consumer depends upon the authorities of the Board for its day to day amenities which are essential for human existence. It is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 14. The Board being a public authority discharge Governmental function. A consumer depends upon the authorities of the Board for its day to day amenities which are essential for human existence. It is the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It thus require to act fairly, judiciously and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Its action thus must be fair and conform to the standards of public morality. Its Officers cannot act arbitrarily or raise demand for substantial amount of money without affording opportunity of hearing to the consumer. 15. In this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that the action on the part of the respondents to disconnect the electrical energy of 220 volts was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The said electrical connection must be restored at once. 16. There cannot be any doubt that different reports with regard to the capacity of the weilding machine had been furnished. The petitioner has also not been billed constantly. From a perusal of Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, it also does not appear that the same consists the signature of the petitioners inasmuch as the same appears to have been signed by one Naresh Mistri and not by the petitioner. It has not been disputed before this Court that the Bihar State Electricity Board itself has issued various circulars wherein provisions have been made for obtaining signature of the consumer so that the dispute may not arise with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the inspection report. 17. There cannot be any doubt that the respondent-Board has jurisdic tion to disconnect the electrical energy, once it is found that the consumer have consumed the electrical energy beyond its sanctioned load. However, even in such a case, it is incumbment upon the Bihar State Electricity Board to come to a definite finding, if and dispute is raised in this regard. However, I may add that such dispute must be bona fide one. I am further of the opinion that even in relation to the dispute the Board should apply the principles of natural justice. 18. However, I may add that such dispute must be bona fide one. I am further of the opinion that even in relation to the dispute the Board should apply the principles of natural justice. 18. However, regard being had to the fact that there is a wide discrepancy in the different reports, in my opinion, the capacity of the weilding machine may be tested by the Senior Eletrical Inspector, Patna at first instance and the bill should be raised by the Board on that basis. Both the petitioner as also the Executive Engineer of the Board must file a copy of this order to the Electrical Inspector within one week from today and who would fix a date for joint inspection and submit his report within two weeks thereafter. Upon receipt of the report, the Board may raise its bill on the basis thereof subject to the rights and contentions of the parties to question the same before the appropriate forum, if any occasion arise therefor. 19. This writ application is, therefore, allowed in part to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. In view of the fact that the petitioners electrical disconnection in relation to supply of electrical energy of 220 volts was wholly illegal, the petitioner would be entitled to cost which is quantified at Rs. 10,000. The respondent Board while raising its bill upon receipt of the report of the Electrical Inspector shall give adjustment of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 10,000. However, it would also be open to the petitioner to file suit for damages the Bihar State Electricity Board and/or its Officers for wrongful disconnection of its electrical energy. 20. The respondent-Board are further directed to restore the petitioners electrical connection in relation to supply of the electrical energy at 440 volts within 36 hours from the date of payment of revised bill raised by the Board in terms of the report of the Senior Electrical Inspector. R.N.Prasad, J. 21 I agree.