Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The grievance of the petitioner, as is revealed from the contents of the writ petition, is that the B.S.E.B. was raising bills against the petitioner from the period 1991 on the basis of the alleged inspection to the effect that the petitioner had increased his load from 75 HP to 134 H.P. The petitioner came to this Court on previous occasion also with the same allegation, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 2050 of 1991 (R) which was disposed of on 13.11.91 directing the petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate authority together with all the documents and the respondents No. 3 in that writ petition was asked, to dispose of the representation after giving a hearing to the petitioner and the electric connection of the petitioner was asked not be disconnected, if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 , the order of the Division Bench is contained in Annexure-6. Then the petitioners contention is that the representation of the petitioner was not disposed of and the bills were again raised in higher rate showing the increased load of 104.75 H.P. and for non-payment of the bills, his electric connection was disconnected. The petitioner then came up before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1661 of 1994 (R) which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.11.94 after hearing both the parties. It was held that the impugned order of disconnection was bad and the bills as contained in Annexure-9 of that writ petition was also highly inflated and as such quashed and direction was given to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad to re-consider the entire matter on the facts of the case and give a fresh decision in accordance with law after considering the ration of the two decisions namely Bihar Chamber of Commerce and Anr. V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) PLJR page 103 and Trident Tubes Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B. and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 10006 of 1992). V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) PLJR page 103 and Trident Tubes Ltd. V/s. B.S.E.B. and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 10006 of 1992). It is now the contention of the petitioner that the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad Electrical Circle, Dhanbad, had belatedly now after the direction of this Court disposed of the representation after hearing the Managing Director of the petitioner company by Annexure-14, but the grievances of the petitioner company by Annexure-14, but the grievances of the petitioner have not been redressed in their proper prospective and the direction of this Court as given in the above mentioned C.W.J.C. have also not been complied with as the ratio of the judgments referred to in that order has never been considered by the authority. 2. It appears that some relief to the petitioner have been granted as there were some defects in raising of bills on the increased load of several inspection reports. The operative part of the order of the Electrical Superintending Engineer is as follows: (a) The bill to be raised on L.T. Tariff from 1.9.90 to 18.10.92 on connected load on 75 H.P. (b) The bill to be raised on excess load of 29 H.P. more than sanctioned load of 75 H.P. as per agreement executed by the petitioner as per provision laid down in the tariff 91 under Clauses 16.9 (c) The petitioner is liable to pay energy charge on H.T. Tariff of 75 KVA load effect from the date of installation of H.T. meter i.e. on 19.10.92. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the B.S.E.B., supported the order of Electrical Superintending Engineer and stated that although the bills were rightly raised on inspection report time to time on the increased load yet, the B.S.E.B. would be abide by the direction of raising up bills on L.T. Tariff from 1.9.80 to 18.10.92 on connected load of 75 HP. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Pawan Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, at the time of submission practically stressed on the point that the petitioner can not be charged on H.T. Tariff as the facilities required to be provided have never been done from the side of the B.S.E.B. His contention is that the meter installed at the instance of the petitioner was defective and it was replaced after the same was burnt down and that a 100 KVA transformer can in no case could load of 104 H.P. to the petitioner when other various loads are connected with the same transformer. The aluminum wire etc. required to be done for the purpose of H.T. Load, the enquiry by Electrical Sub Inspector etc. was never been done and as such the petitioner can not be held liable for installing excess load. 5. It appears that on every point as directed by this Court, the Electrical Superintending Engineer had given his considered opinion and on technical point he had also given reasoning as to how had come to the conclusion on the grievances of the petitioner. From the trend of argument as placed before the court, I could understand that the petitioner must have increased his load and when the said load was found by Vigilance officials then the petitioner is liable to pay on the basis of excess load. 6. Regarding transformer issue, I don not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not necessary that all the connection taken from the transformer were using the full load at a time and as such 100 KV transformer can provide proper load to the parties. If, that would not have been done then the transformer would have burnt down by this time. It appears from the report itself that the petitioner was to abide by the direction under the rules for the H.T. agreement which the petitioner has not yet done. For increased load when the bills are raised after proper enquiry, this Court is always slow in interfering with the matter and in very many cases this Court refused to interfere when there is increased load by the consumer, reference may be made from C.W.J.C. No. 4010/94 and C.W.J.C. No. 159 of 95 (R). For increased load when the bills are raised after proper enquiry, this Court is always slow in interfering with the matter and in very many cases this Court refused to interfere when there is increased load by the consumer, reference may be made from C.W.J.C. No. 4010/94 and C.W.J.C. No. 159 of 95 (R). If the petitioner feels that he is not to go for H.T. agreement and he should remain within the LT then he may inform, so to the B.S.E.B. by decreasing the load and coming within the permitted load of 75 HP in future. 7. Having no force in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. 8. No order as to costs.