ORDER The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 25.4.2008 passed in Case No.204 (H)/19/07 by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum constituted under section 42(5) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 whereby it upheld the excess connected load found at the time of inspection on 9.5.2006. The petitioner also prays for quashing the bill dated 14.6.2006 issued under clause 8(d) of the Board’s notification no.477 dated 29.10.2002 as well as bill dated 10.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.12,55,626/-, besides, demanding additional security of Rs.2,21,850/-. 2. During pendency of this application the petitioner filed I.A. No.6773 of 2011, wherein the petitioner sought amendment in the prayer made in the writ application. The petitioner stated in the Interlocutory Application that during the pendency of the writ application a certificate case being Certificate Case No.1/2011-12 was initiated for a demand of Rs.21,27,441.06 paise which according to the petitioner includes principally the demand arriving out of penal bill raised on the basis of inspection report dated 9.5.2006. The petitioner has prayed to add the prayer of staying further proceedings in the Certificate case as the liability has not finally been determined and still a dispute to it. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application would be part of the relief sought for in the main writ application. 4. Before I consider the rival contentions of the parties, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief. The petitioner is a cold storage which initially started with a sanctioned load of 23 HP in 1961. Over the years the sanctioned load of the unit was enhanced and prior to 1.2.2003 the unit was having load of 100 KVA under HTS-I category of Tariff. On the application of the petitioner the reduction of load from 100 KVA under HTS-I Tariff to 94 HP under LTIS Tariff was allowed on fulfilling certain terms and conditions that the two compressors and one motor of the Unit would be removed. 5. On 9.5.2006 the Board made an inspection and the connected load was found 120.5 HP as against sanctioned load of 94 HP. A copy of the inspection report is annexed at Annexure-3 as well as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the Board. 5. On 9.5.2006 the Board made an inspection and the connected load was found 120.5 HP as against sanctioned load of 94 HP. A copy of the inspection report is annexed at Annexure-3 as well as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit filed by the Board. According to the inspection report, two compressors which were directed to be removed and which the petitioner had admitted to have removed were not removed. The Board also lodged a case of theft in which final form in favour of petitioner was filed. The petitioner challenged the inspection report in C.W.J.C.No.6756 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.2.2007 with liberty to the petitioner to move Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum with further liberty to move an application for connection of energy line. The petitioner filed an application before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum giving rise to Consumer Case No.65 of 2007. The Forum vide interim order asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.3 lacs as a condition precedent for energisation of electric supply. The petitioner deposited the said amount and the electric supply was restored. The Forum by its order dated 7.6.2007 disposed of the application upholding the inspection report and the Forum further asked the petitioner to seek conversion of his tariff category from low tension to high tension and to execute an agreement. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again moved this court in C.W.J.C.No.12775 of 2007. 6. The petitioner’s case in the writ application was that the Forum had found several irregularities in the inspection report dated 9.5.2006. Further more, the Forum gave a categorical finding that C.T. connection of all the three C.T. wires were opened, still the Forum noticed that the inspection report shows that meter was running. The petitioner contended that the Forum itself observed that when all the three C.T. wires were opened, there was no question of running of meter. This court vide order dated 3.12.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No.12775 of 2007 directed the Forum to reconsider the validity and correctness of the inspection report. 7. In the meantime, the Board on the basis of inspection report issued penal bill from time to time under Clause D of the Board’s notification no.477 dated 29.10.2002 treating the petitioner unit as belonging to THIS category. 7. In the meantime, the Board on the basis of inspection report issued penal bill from time to time under Clause D of the Board’s notification no.477 dated 29.10.2002 treating the petitioner unit as belonging to THIS category. For instance, the bill dated 14.6.2006 was for Rs.5,31,139 and bill dated 10.10.2007 was for Rs.12,55,626 and a demand of additional security of Rs.2,21,350/- vide letter no.1794 dated 13.7.2007 was also raised (Annexures-8, 9 and 10). The Forum again reconsidered the matter and upheld the inspection report and did not find any fault in the subsequent bills raised treating the unit as H.T. category. 8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.4.2008 of Forum as well as inspection report and various punitive bills raised. The petitioner has also prayed for stay of the certificate proceedings. 9. The case of the petitioner in nut shell is that the connected load would hardly be 98 HP and as such both the Forum as well the Inspecting Team erred in estimating the same to be 120.5 HP. The petitioner submits that the respondents erred in applying the penal provisions treating the Unit under HT category. The petitioner further submits that one of the Managing Partner, who was 75 years of age signed the report under threat of his arrest and as such the report cannot be treated as sanguine. The Inspecting team took into account compressors and motors which were either not available at the spot or where connected with any electric line or unit. The petitioner submits that only when the liability is final and there is no dispute in respect of it that a certificate proceeding can be drawn under clause 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. 10. On the other hand, counsel for the Board has supported the inspection report as well as finding of Forum and raising of the punitive bills and initiation of a certificate proceedings. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The inspection report has calculated the total load on the basis of appliances it had found in the Unit. The details of appliances found and its connected load is mentioned in the inspection report as well as in the findings of the Forum. The inspection report has been signed by one of the Managing partners. The inspection report has calculated the total load on the basis of appliances it had found in the Unit. The details of appliances found and its connected load is mentioned in the inspection report as well as in the findings of the Forum. The inspection report has been signed by one of the Managing partners. At this juncture, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Inspecting team also took into account certain compressors and motors which were not there in the Unit itself. As such, the allegation that inspection report was motivated, false and cannot be accepted. Further more, a Division Bench of this court in the case of B.S.E.B. Vs Suryadaya Industries in L.P.A. No.365 of 2010 disposed of on 27.8.2010 has observed that once the inspection report is signed by one of the partners or the Manager or the representative, the same cannot be disputed. 12. Coming to the issues of drawing excess load, it is settled that, if a consumer is using excess of sanctioned load, cannot refuse payment on technical ground that unless an agreement is entered in that respect, one cannot be liable to pay the amount. In other words, if a LTIS consumer is found using load of HT consumer, it can be liable to pay tariff applicable in HT category irrespective of any prior agreement. Conversely it can be said, that if a LTIS consumer uses load meant for HT consumer without agreement, it cannot take the plea that in absence of agreement in HT category he would not be liable to pay the bill applicable to HT consumer. In this respect, the respondent Board has rightly referred to the decision in the case of Shiv Shambhu Hard Coke Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & ors, reported in 1999(2) PLJR 665 . 13. So far as staying of certificate proceeding is concerned, it will be open for him to file his objection and to take pleas available under the law before it. 14. In the circumstances, the petitioner is granted an opportunity to pay the amount demanded in six equal monthly installments besides current charges. On payment of three equal monthly installments, the electric line would be restored which would be subject to payment of rest amount in the remaining three equal monthly installments. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of.