ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Reference may be made to the order dated 13.9.2004. which read as under : "In this case, petitioner has been denied supply of electricity on the ground that there is dues of Rs. 2,02,893/- against the owner of the property who has let out the premises to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Board stated that because of nonpayment of the aforesaid dues, the line has been disconnected in 1997. Before deciding the matter. I direct the respondent-Board to file supplementary counter affidavit and State the action taken against the consumer for the recovery of the aforesaid dues. If any suit or proceeding has been instituted then respondent shall also disclose the number of the case and the name of the Court where the case is pending. Put-up this ease on 21.9.2004 within first, five cases. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division-1, Ranchi, shall file supplementary counter affidavit and shall be present in the Court on that date." 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, show cause and supplementary counter- affidavit have been filed by the respondents,-giving the details of the cases filed against the defaulting consumers. Curiously enough no proceedings for recovery of the amount has been instituted against M/s. Choudhary Industries, who was the erstwhile consumer in respect of the premises in question. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Board, submitted that from 1995 to 1998, one Lal Bhadur was the Executive Engineer, from November, 1998 to June, 1999 one Raja Ram was the Executive Engineer and from July, 1999 to August, 2001, one Mr. Satish Chandra Thakur was the Executive Engineer, who were supposed to institute proceedings for recovery of the electricity dues from the consumer, M/s- Choudhary Industries. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the line was disconnected in the premises of M/s. Choudhary Industries in the years 1997 and in 2001, a decision was taken for recovery of the dues, but no case was instituted since the amount became barred by limitation. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken the premises on lease from Smt. Mridul Choudhary. This Court by order dated 2.9.2004 directed the Lessor Mridul Choudhary to file affidavit stating that she has no concern with the business running in the name of M/s. Choudhary Enterprises. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has taken the premises on lease from Smt. Mridul Choudhary. This Court by order dated 2.9.2004 directed the Lessor Mridul Choudhary to file affidavit stating that she has no concern with the business running in the name of M/s. Choudhary Enterprises. In compliance of that order an affidavit has been by Smt, Mridul Choudhary stating that she has let out the shop measuring an area of 300 sq. ft. of plot No. 719, Khata No. 11, Holding No. 790D/ 790E, situated at Piska More, Ratu Road, Ranchi. She has further stated in the affidavit that M/s. Choudhary Enterprises was in the entire plot of about 6 kimtas and constructed a small shop and gave it on rent to the petitioner. 5. It is really surprising that earlier M/s. Choudhary, Enterprises was the consumer against whom a sum of Rs. 2,02,893/-became due but no action was taken by the concerned officers of the Electricity Board for the recovery of the dues. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles v. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1995) 2 SCC 648 and series of decisions of this Court, I have no option to direct the respondents to supply electricity in the shop premises of the petitioner by taking decision on the application filed by him. At the same time. I also direct the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility against the officers for whose negligence the aforementioned dues was not recovered from the consumer M/s. Choudhary Enterprises and after fixing the -liability, recover the amount from the salary of the erring officer.