JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.1.2001 passed by respondent No. 2-General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Chotanagpur, Area Electricity Board, Ranchi and also for quashing the bill for the month of September, 1998 served upon the petitioner and further for a direction to give the details of the bill dated 1.2.2001 and restore supply of electricity. 2. I have heard Mr. Sat Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that in 1985 the petitioner was given electrical connection on the basis of an agreement with load of 3 HP. In 1996 the petitioner was served with a bill dated 15.8.1996 for a sum of Rs. 2,02,454.21 paise. The bill was prepared on the basis of 20 HP and Rs. 1,94,282.07 paise was shown as previous arrear. The petitioner challenged the said bill by filing CWJC No. 4016/96R which was disposed of on 26.8.1997 with a direction to the petitioner to put his grievance before respondent No. 3, the Electrical Executive Engineer who was directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the petitioner appeared before the Electrical Executive Engineer who, after hearing the parties, passed a reasoned order dated 29.6.1998 holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the bill. The petitioner again challenged the said order of the Electrical Executive Engineer by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 2458/98R. The said writ petition was disposed of on 19,5.1999. A Bench of this Court directed respondent No. 2, the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer to reconsider the matter and take decision in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order respondent No. 2, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, reconsidered the matter and finally held that the decision taken by the Electrical Executive Engineer is perfectly correct and in accordance with law. The petitioner again challenged the said decision of the General Manager dated 27.1.2001 by filing the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. The petitioner again challenged the said decision of the General Manager dated 27.1.2001 by filing the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Sat Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, without application of his independent mind and without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, has passed the impugned order erroneously holding that the order of the Electrical Executive Engineer is perfectly correct. Learned counsel submitted that no inspection was ever conducted by the officers of the Board at any point of time and on the basis of the ex parte inspection report the decision was taken and bill was prepared on the basis of the load of 20 HP. According to the learned counsel even assuming that the inspection was done by the Board then the bill could not have been raised on the basis of that inspection report without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. From perusal of the records it appears that a team headed by the Assistant Electrical Engineer inspected the premises of the petitioner from 10.12.1993 and found 20.5 HP load in the presence of the consumer. According to the Board an inspection report was prepared on the spot but the petitioner refused to put his signature on the inspection report. Therefore, the inspection report was sent by registered post vide registration No. 167, dated 11.2.1993 to the petitioner. On the basis of the load; found in the premises of the petitioner a bill was prepared and the same was challenged by the petitioner. This Court directed the Executive Engineer to consider the objection of the petitioner and take a decision in accordance with law. From perusal of the decision of the Electrical Executive Engineer, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, it appears that the Electrical Executive Engineer gave full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and disposed of the representation by holding that the petitioner would be liable to pay electricity charges on the basis of 21 HP from February, 1993 to June, 1997 in accordance with the inspection report and further from July, 1997 till date on the basis of routine inspection report, dated 21.6.1997 accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the said order moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 2458/98R which was disposed of on 19.5.1999. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the said order moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 2458/98R which was disposed of on 19.5.1999. The relevant portion of the order reads as under : "In the facts and circumstances of the case, and having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the matter needs reconsideration in the Board at a higher level. Let the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, South Chotanagpur Area Electricity Board, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) sit in judgment over the aforesaid enquiry report-cum-order dated 29.6.1998 (Annexure 8 read with annexures marked A series) and pass appropriate order consistent with law, justice and equity." 6. As noticed above, the General Manager again gave hearing to the petitioner and passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the electricity charges as per the bill raised by the Board. 7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this Court gave sufficient indulgence to the petitioner to substantiate his grievance before the authorities of the Board and the authorities of the Board, namely, the Electrical Executive Engineer, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed a reasoned order holding that the petitioner is liable to pay electricity charges as per the bill. The order of the Electrical Executive Engineer was again reviewed by the General Manager pursuant to the direction of this Court and the General Manager, after reconsidering the entire facts of the case, affirmed the order of the Electrical Executive Engineer. In such circumstance, I am of the view that this Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its own reasonings and come to a different conclusion when the claim of the petitioner was thoroughly examined by the authorities of the Board who have come to final conclusion. Now there should be the end of the matter and the petitioner must be held liable to pay the dues of the Electricity Board as per the calculation made by the Board in the decision taken by the Electrical Executive Engineer and affirmed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed.