JUDGMENT Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition are: i. for quashing the electricity bill dated 22.07.2002 in respect of Meter No. WBD 87 amounting to Rs. 90,052/-which, according to the petitioner, was raised on the basis of MRT Report; ii. to direct the respondents for installing meter in respect of the aforesaid connection; iii. for raising electrical bills on the basis of meter reading; iv. to issue fresh and correct bill after proper verification. 3. As it appears from the pleadings of the parties, the petitioner has a house situated at Dhanbad and he has taken electric line from the Jharkhand State Electricity Board having three meters being Meter Nos. WBD 85, WBD86 and WBD 87. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the Meter No. WBD 87 was in running conditions but the respondent Board was sending the Electricity Bills on average basis and, therefore, the petitioner informed the Board about the said irregularities and requested to raise the electricity bills on the basis of actual meter reading. 4. According to the petitioner, the Board could not have raised such bill on average basis of more than three months although, the Meter No. WBD 87 was in a running condition, therefore, sending of average bill on the basis of average running of the meter was illegal and arbitrary. 5. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier by filing C.W.J.C. NO. 155 of 2001 challenging the raising of Bills on average basis. This Court, by order dated 02.08.2001, directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Electrical Superintending Engineer making grievance with regard to correctness of the Bills raised as against the Meter No. WBD 87 and the Electrical Superintending Engineer was directed to consider the representation and pass final order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a representation. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, on receipt of such representation, issued notices to the Officers of the Board as well as the petitioner to participate in the hearing in order to resolve the disputes between the parties. It was also thought proper to get the Meter in question tested and, accordingly, as agreed, the Meter was sent to MRT Laboratory, Dhanbad for getting it tested. It was also thought proper to get the Meter in question tested and, accordingly, as agreed, the Meter was sent to MRT Laboratory, Dhanbad for getting it tested. The said Laboratory is said to be authentic and as per the norms and rules of the Board. The petitioner also agreed to get the Meter tested in MRT Laboratory, Dhanbad. After testing, the MRT Laboratory, Dhanbad submitted test report to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Dhanbad mentioning that after testing, it was detected that the Meter in question was running slow by 83.8%. Consequently, the Electrical Superintending Engineer directed to revise the Bills and directed to issue fresh Bills considering 83.8% slow reading of the Meter for the whole period in dispute and, accordingly, for the disputed period, 8/1993 to 4/2001 Bill was reviewed and revised Bill of Rs.90,052/-was issued to the petitioner. But the petitioner did not pay the said Bill and challenged the same by filing the present writ petition. 6. As it further appears that regularly the Bills for the energy consumed by the petitioner are being sent to the petitioner but the petitioner is enjoying electricity without making any payment for the electricity consumed by him. 7. From the facts noticed above, it is clear that pursuant to the order of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Electrical Superintending Engineer made thorough enquiry about the grievance of the petitioner and in order to resolve the dispute, the Meter in question was got tested in the MRT Laboratory, Dhanbad with the consent of the petitioner and when it was detected that the Meter was running slow by 83.8%, then on that basis, as per the directions of the Electrical Superintending Engineer, the Electrical Bills of the petitioner was revised and, therefore, in such a situation, the grievance raised by the petitioner about correctness of the revised Bill and authenticity of the testing report by MRT Laboratory, cannot be entertained. The action of the petitioner in raising grievance against the revised Bill does not appear to be fair enough rather it is unfair on the part of the petitioner that without making any payment for the electricity consumed since 2002, he is enjoying electricity though there is no order of stay passed by this Court. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, having found no merit this writ petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.