ORAL ORDER Respondent-erstwhile Electricity Board cannot convert their inaction as well as failure to take a decision to their advantage by penalizing the consumer which has been done in the present case. 2. As per the assertion in the writ application petitioner had connected load of 3 KW in NDS II. It is his case that looking at the load factor he made a request to the local functionaries of the erstwhile Board for enhancement of load from 3 KW to 6 KW. On the calculation and advice of the Assistant Electrical Engineer, he deposited security money of Rs.4500/- as requisite fee cum security money for enhancement of load. It is also his case that thereafter one Moti Lal who happened to be the employee of the Board visited the premises of the petitioner and wanted to be obliged. Petitioner refused to entertain him since he had already agreed to enhance load and for which he had already taken steps by a deposit on 13.5.2008 itself. 3. The said Moti Lal with some other officers visited the premises of the petitioner on 15.5.2008 and again made physical verification of the load which was found to be less than 6 KW. Treating that inspection to be a case of overdrawal of power from the sanctioned load, liability has been created upon the petitioner to which he protested but still no cognizance of his grievance has been taken by the Executive Engineer including the General Manager cum Chief Engineer, Bhagalpur. He passed an order on 18.2.2010 upholding the demand upon the petitioner saying that when the inspection was made, load was found to be more than 3 KW and certain formalities were required to be done for enhancement of the load which was not done. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that till date he has no information or knowledge as to what has been done in the records of the Electricity Board. There may be provision for another meter as well as 3 phase line to be provided on enhancement of load beyond 5 KW but since respondents have not done anything or asked or directed the petitioner to do anything, his old connection with running meter, which registered the correct consumption continued to deliver services and bills are required to be raised on the basis of the said consumption. 5. Respondents have tried to gloss over many a facts. 5. Respondents have tried to gloss over many a facts. The stand taken by them in the counter affidavit, prima facie, did not satisfy the Court on the correctness of the stand so taken. It was in this background that the Court directed production of original records relating to the petitioner and decision taken on the deposit for enhancement of load by the petitioner on 13.5.2008 itself. Either there is a refusal which may be deliberate on the part of the respondents to produce the original records or a deliberate plea is taken that the original records are not available with the respondents. How do the official records go missing is something which is not appreciable by the Court. It is also recorded that what was sought to be passed on the Court as records relating to this case is basically a file which has been dealt with after filing of the writ application and not with regard to the consumer and augmentation of load which is the issue in the present case. 6. Non-production of the original records and the file relating to the decision in question obviously cannot go to the advantage of the respondents to treat the inspection dated 15.5.2008 to be a case of overdrawal of energy beyond the sanctioned load because petitioner had carried out his responsibility by depositing the security money and other expenses. The rest of the decision had to be taken by the Board. 7. Since the petitioner had done what was advised for enhancement of load from 3 KW to 6 KW and it is not the case of the respondents that the inspection threw up a figure higher than 6 KW, this Court will have difficulty in upholding Annexure-1, that is the decision of the General Manager for creating a liability by penal charges upon the petitioner for consuming more energy than what was sanctioned. 8. Petitioner has made out a case, therefore, for interference. Annexure-1 stands quashed. The corresponding demand raised by the respondents, contained in Annexure-2 dated 12.7.2008 is also quashed. The respondents are directed to raise a bill on actual consumption, which is reflected from the meter, which is still functional and working. Respondents are further directed to do the needful to augment the load to 6 KW including change of meter, which is the stand of the General Manager in Annexure-1. The respondents are directed to raise a bill on actual consumption, which is reflected from the meter, which is still functional and working. Respondents are further directed to do the needful to augment the load to 6 KW including change of meter, which is the stand of the General Manager in Annexure-1. This is required to be done by them and them alone and not by the consumer. 9. Writ application is allowed in terms of above. 10. It is made clear that all the disputes in this regard will be resolved within a period of three months from today.