Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Counsel for the Board. 2. In this writ application the petitioner seeks appropriate relief in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to charge the electric bill from the petitioner on the basis of 50 HP and not on the basis of 65 HP in the light of the order of respondent No. 4, vide letter dated 28.11.1991 considering the fact that even after the reduction of the load in the petitioners premises the respondents had been wrongly preparing the bills on the basis of 65 HP and further prayer has been made for omitting the delayed payment surcharge on the amount claimed by the Board and for refund of the amount after adjustment. 3. It has not been disputed that before 1991 there was an agreement between the petitioner and the respondent -Board under which contract demand was 65 HP. It appears that in 1991 the petitioner applied for reduction of load from 65 HP to 50 HP and in response thereto the respondent-Board issued a letter dated 28.11.1991 that they reduced the load by 15 HP. However, pursuant to that letter neither the petitioner performed his obligation nor the respondent Board invited the petitioner for execution of a fresh agreement. Consequently the load of 65 HP continued and the respondent-Board continuously raised the bill on the basis of 65 HP and the same was paid by the petitioner till November, 1995. However, by letter dated 25.11.1996 the petitioner represented the Board that although it was decided to reduce load from 65 HP to 50 HP in the year 1991 but the Board continuously raised the bill on the basis of 65 HP. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Board to refund the excess amount paid by him. In response to the said letter the Board, vide letter dated 28.6.1997 informed the petitioner that reduction of load can be accepted only after due inspection. 4. Be that as it may, after such decision was taken for reduction of load from 65 HP to 50 HP, no fresh agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Board and the petitioner without raising any objection consumed electricity on the same load and continuously paid the bill till November, 1995. 4. Be that as it may, after such decision was taken for reduction of load from 65 HP to 50 HP, no fresh agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Board and the petitioner without raising any objection consumed electricity on the same load and continuously paid the bill till November, 1995. In that view of the matter, I am of the definite opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of the decision that has been taken in the year 1991 for reduction of load from 65 HP to 50 HP in the year 1996. However, in view of the letter dated 28.6.1997 (Annexun-9) issued by the respondent-Board, it would be proper for the Board to consider the case of the petitioner for reduction of load with effect from January, 1997 and to revise the bill accordingly. For the aforesaid purpose the petitioner would file a detailed representation before the respondent No. 3 who shall look into the matter and after considering the representation and after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order. Accordingly the bill will be revised and on payment of the revised bill and on execution of the agreement in respect of the reduced load the supply of electricity shall be restored in the premises of the petitioner. Such representation must be disposed of within four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.