SRI N. K. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) SRI N. K. Gupta, is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete third respondent. Permitted. Third respondent is deleted. This matter is heard finally with consent and disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was served with a back-billing claim dated 1-2-1999 (Annexure-C), demanding a sum of Rs. 10,31,411/- on the ground that the inspection of the installation bearing RR No. IP 31610/p3. 4 of the petitioner at Awambhavi, Bellary, by vigilance staff of KEB disclosed that the same was being used for commercial purpose with effect from 5-11-1993. Petitioner has filed objections on 4-2-1999 (Annexure-D), followed by further objections dated 23-2-1999. The first respondent thereafter sent a communication dated 2-3-1999 (Annexure-E), wherein he refers to the petitioner's letters dated 4-2-1999 and 23-2-1999. However, instead of considering the said objections, he proceeded on the basis that the petitioner has failed to pay the back-billing amount within thirty days and informing the petitioner that if he wants to challenge the same, he should file an appeal. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition and sought quashing of annexure-E dated 2-3-1999. ( 3 ) THOUGH Annexure-C calls upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,31,411/-as back-billing claim, it also permits the petitioner to file objections, if he has any. In view of above, Annexure-C has to be held to be a show-cause notice. Petitioner has filed objections to Annexure-C as per annexures-D and D1. Instead of considering the said objections, first respondent has now issued the impugned communication dated 2-3-1999, directing the petitioner to file an appeal. This is untenable. Having issued a show-cause notice, the first respondent ought to have considered the objections and pass appropriate orders on the proposed back-billing claim. In fact, no back-billing claim can be raised without giving an opportunity to the consumer to show cause in the matter --Shreejee Plastics v Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Another. Hence, annexure-E cannot be sustained. It is also seen that though Annexure-C is a show-cause notice, particulars or break up of the claim or Rs. 10,31,411/- has not been furnished. It is also seen that a copy of the inspection report has also not been furnished. The Board will have to furnish the same. Hence, annexure-E cannot be sustained. It is also seen that though Annexure-C is a show-cause notice, particulars or break up of the claim or Rs. 10,31,411/- has not been furnished. It is also seen that a copy of the inspection report has also not been furnished. The Board will have to furnish the same. ( 4 ) IN view of above, this petition is allowed in the following manner: (a) Annexure-E dated 2-3-1999 issued by first respondent is quashed; (b) First respondent is directed to furnish detailed calculation sheet and particulars of the back-billing claim of Rs. 10,31,411/- and a copy of the inspection report to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (c) The petitioner shall file additional objections, if any, thereto, within one month from the date of the receipt of said particulars; and (d) The first respondent shall, thereafter, consider the objections and pass appropriate orders on the back-billing claim. Till such consideration and orders, supply of electricity to the petitioner's installation shall not be disconnected for nonpayment of the amount mentioned in Annexure-C. Sri N. K. Gupta is permitted to file vakalath within four weeks.