ORDER 1. The petitioner has a L.T.I.S. electricity connection with the sanctioned load of 10 H.P. The electricity connection was earlier given by the Fatuha Phulwari Sahkari Samiti but later the Samiti was merged with the Bihar State Electricity Board which took over the supply of electricity to its consumers, including the petitioner. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge a demand notice, dated 5.2.1999 asking her to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,813/-. The impugned demand is raised on the ground that the connected load at the petitioner's premises was found to be 23.5 H.P. and hence a revised bill for the past six months from the date of the inspection was prepared on that basis. 3. Though the demand is raised on the basis of an alleged inspection, it is an admitted position that no inspection report, giving the details of motors and appliances found at the petitioner's premises is in existence. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Board but Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, counsel appearing on its behalf submitted with reference to the departmental records, that the petitioner's premises was inspected on 11.10.1996 by a team of officers, including the Superintending Electrical Engineer. In course of inspection there the total connected load was found to be 23.5 H.P. Admittedly, however, the findings of the inspection were not written down and no inspection report was prepared. In the absence of any written report there is naturally no question of obtaining the signature of the petitioner or her representative on it and of giving its copy to her. . 4. The petitioner does not admit that any inspection was held on 11.10.1996 and this further adds to the difficulties of the Board in this case, Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha sought to establish that an inspection was in fact held on 11.10.1996 by referring to various other materials and circumstances. He submitted that on 5.4.1996 the petitioner had made an application for enhancement of her load from 10 H.P. to 23 H.P. He also referred to a letter, dated 18.10.1996 written by the Superintending Electrical Engineer to the Electrical Executive Engineer in which a reference was made to the inspection held at the petitioner's premises on 11.10.1996. He also referred to an exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the department. He also referred to an exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the department. According to him these materials indicated that there was in fact an inspection held on 11.10.1996 in which the total connected load at the petitioner's premises was found to be 23.5. H.P. and it was on that basis that the impugned demand was raised. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, relied upon a letter dated 8.12.1997 written by the Electrical Executive Engineer to the Superintending Electrical Engineer in which a recommendation is made to revise the demand and to raise bills against the petitioner on the basis of 10 H.P. 6. As noted above, the admitted position in this case is that there is no inspection report in writing. Further, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause why demand be not raised on the basis of the higher connected load. In those circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the impugned demand and in view of the Division Bench decision in the Bihar State Electricity Board and others Vs. M/s. Sri Bir Ispat, 1998(3) BLJR 1985 : 1999(1) PLJR 466 and another recent decision in M/s. Venky Steel Pvt. Limited vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and others; CWJC No. 4532 of 1999: date of disposal 14.9.1999 [1999(3) PLJR 473], I am unable to accept Mr. Jha's contention regarding inspection being held on 11.10.1996 on the basis of the materials referred to by him. 7. The impugned demand is accordingly set aside and the Board is restrained from disconnecting the petitioner's line for nonpayment of the demand made in the notice, dated 5.2.1999 (Annexure-1). It will be, however, open to the Board to hold a fresh inspection of the petitioner's premises and to proceed on that basis, in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.