JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.1995 passed in CWJC No. 2670 of 1995R whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition for quashing the order dated 4.9.1995 passed by the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad Electrical Circle, Dhanbad whereby he disposed of the representation filed by the writ petitioner-appellant in compliance of the order and direction passed in CWJC No. 1661 of 1994 and further for a direction upon the respondent-Board for raising fresh bill in accordance with law. 3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the affidavits filed by the parties and after hearing the counsels for the parties, dismissed the writ petition holding that the Electrical Superintending Engineer, while disposing of the representation, considered all the points and has given full reasons as to how he came to the conclusion on the grievances of the appellant-writ petitioner. 4. We have heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and also Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Board. 5. The admitted facts are that the appellant was L.T. consumer and executed agreement with the Board for 75 H.P. load for the purpose of its industry. At the initial stage the appellant first applied for 34 H.P. load which was extended to 75 H.P. load. On 1.9.1990 the factory premises of the appellant was inspected by the Vigilance and the connected load of the appellant was found as 134.5 H.P. After inspection a detailed inspection report was submitted and on the bash of the inspection report necessary instructions were issued for conversion of load from L.T. to H.P. in the factory premises of the appellant. A letter to that effect was also issued. On receipt of the letter writ petition was filed being CWJC No. 2080 of 1991R. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to file representation before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad who, in turn, was directed to examine the grievance of the appellant-writ petitioner. A letter to that effect was also issued. On receipt of the letter writ petition was filed being CWJC No. 2080 of 1991R. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to file representation before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad who, in turn, was directed to examine the grievance of the appellant-writ petitioner. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad ELECL, Circle, Dhanbad, inspected the factory premises of the appellant to assess the actual connected load of the unit of the appellant and it was found to the extent of 104.75 H.P. load in operation and two machines i.e., grand and one weilding set were found lying in the factory 6. Accordingly, necessary directions were issued to raise bill under L.T.I.S. upto 13.3.1990 and from 14.3.1990 under H.T. tariff. Again the appellant filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 1661 of 1994(R). The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Superintending Engineer to reconsider the entire matter and take a fresh decision. The appellant again filed a representation and again a fresh decision was taken after giving full opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant then again challenged the said decision of the Electrical Superintending Engineer by filing the instant writ petition. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that since the entire grievance of the appellant was twice considered by the Authority of the Board in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing and on the basis of finding of facts particularly the admitted fact that from the Vigilance inspection the load in the unit was found as 134.5 H.P., the learned Single Judge rightly held that the Court should be very slow in interfering with the matter again and again. 8. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case we do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 9. I agree.