JUDGMENT By Court: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In para 1 of the writ application, petitioner states that the respondent- Board, through their acts of omissions have raised a illegal demand of Rs. 1,82,37,799.15p out of which a sum of Rs. 17 Lakhs on account of fuel surcharge has been paid by the petitioner by way of monthly installments and only an amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs may be due including the delayed payment surcharge(D.P.S.) on the ground of default committed by it. The rest of the amount on account of D.P.S levied on demands as far back as in 1988 and 1991 to 1993 has been held illegal by the competent authority. However, in the prayer of the writ application, he has sought directions upon the respondents to rectify the demand of arrear from January, 1988 till date on the basis of adjustment in the payment made by him against monthly bills and against the amount of D.P.S in the manner prayed for. Petitioner has further prayed for a declaration that the provision related to clause 16.2 of the Tariff of 1983 and the amendment of 1994 is ultra vires. However the same is not pressed by the petitioner. The petitioner, consequently has once again prayed for rectification of the amount illegally charged excess in the month of November, December, 1987 and January, February, 1988 and, thereafter, to calculate the D.P.S thereupon up to date which according to him has been illegally charged. Other prayer in the writ application at Para IV is also in respect of the accounting errors in the bills of the petitioner from 1987-88 which he has prayed to be verified by a reputed Chartered Accountant and finally has prayed for restraining the respondents during the pendency of the writ application from realizing the amount raised by letter dated 16.4.2001. 3. The case of the petitioner has a long and chequered history. He had earlier moved the Patna High Court on quite a few occasions with grievances relating to illegal raising of bills. However, in order to cut short the long story, the immediate background to the filing of the present writ application can be taken from the stage when the petitioner had preferred writ application being C.W.J.C No. 579 of 1996(R) being aggrieved by raising of a bill vide letter dated 16.9.1995. However, in order to cut short the long story, the immediate background to the filing of the present writ application can be taken from the stage when the petitioner had preferred writ application being C.W.J.C No. 579 of 1996(R) being aggrieved by raising of a bill vide letter dated 16.9.1995. The Patna High Court vide order dated 2.12.1996 (Annexure-9) found that there are disputed questions of fact involved wherein the Court cannot enter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the General Manager, Respondent No. 2 therein, in respect of his grievances, who in turn was directed to dispose of the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within 2 months, thereafter. It was also observed that if it is found that petitioner has made any over payment, the same may be adjusted towards the future bills. Further, if it is found that legally the petitioner is liable to pay more, the amount which will be determined by the respondent no. 2 shall be paid forthwith by the petitioner, but his electric connection may not be disconnected if he keeps on paying the current charges. The representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.1996 (Annexure-10) appears to be detailed one raising number of disputes, which was finally disposed of by the order dated 14.6.1997 by the General Manager which is contained at Annexure-11. By the said order the General Manager considered the representation of the petitioner which was related to rectification of energy bills where huge amount were shown as arrears. It also include raising of demand on account of audit charges, unposted receipts, levying of D.P.S. over D.P.S., claim under Clause-13 of the H.T agreement and non-implementation of the decision of the Electrical Inspector. After examining the claim of the petitioner, following order was passed :- “After examination and scrutinizing of the claim representation, Elecl. Executive Engineer(C&R), Jamshedpur Electrical submitted that the audit charges on account of lower power factor, compensation charges for failure to pay the fuel surcharge in terms of the provision of grant of installment are correct and justified. The only exception being levying of flat rate charging instead of slab rate charging of KVA consumption. The Elecl. Executive Engineer(C&R), should take steps to correct the demand in conformity tariff, if any deviation is observed. The only exception being levying of flat rate charging instead of slab rate charging of KVA consumption. The Elecl. Executive Engineer(C&R), should take steps to correct the demand in conformity tariff, if any deviation is observed. The hearing of clause-13 for the period stated in the representation would be taken up if the consumer has fulfilled all the criteria laid down by the Board. The implementation of the decision of Electrical Inspector dated 13.11.1995 on the matter of charging of 45% load for period during meter going defective should also be done by Elecl., Executive Engineer(C&R), Jamshedpur as the decision of the Electrical Inspector, Ranchi is consistent with verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. The Claim of the consumer about the amount already having been paid by them yet not posted in the revenue ledger should be duly taken care as their claim is found correct on verification by the Elecl. Executive Engineer (C&R), Jamshedpur Elecl. Circle. Further to this while raising the demand due care should be taken to delete D.P.S. over D.P.S. and other important accounting procedure of Revenue”. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the General Manager while disposing his representation gave directions on three issues relating to implement of the decision of the Electrical Inspector in the matter of correction of demand in conformity with tariff relating to charge at the rate of 45% load for the period during the meter going defective; secondly the amount already paid by the petitioner be taken care of, if it is found to be corrected; lastly it was directed that while raising the demand due care should be taken to delete D.P.S. over D.P.S and also to consider the accounting procedure of revenue. However, according to the petitioner some of the grievances raised by the petitioner in the representation were not considered and decided which related to the charging of amount of Rs. 1,600/- for October 1988 due to short assessment of the year 1981; charging a sum of Rs. 2.27 Lakh in the bill of January, 1989 on the ground of alleged audit objection under different head. According to the petitioner the arrears of the same were implemented but after a delay of 4 years in the year 2001 for which no explanation was furnished. 2.27 Lakh in the bill of January, 1989 on the ground of alleged audit objection under different head. According to the petitioner the arrears of the same were implemented but after a delay of 4 years in the year 2001 for which no explanation was furnished. It is further alleged that the respondent- Superintending Engineer has devised a dubious method for computing the amount of D.P.S. which ultimately has devastating effect of raising a huge amount of illegal bill. A computation chart is annexed as Annexure-22 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent- Board has however on the other hand submitted that the petitioner has been indulging in repeated rounds of litigation and earlier the Patna High Court on atleast more than one occasion had considered the case of the petitioner and by the order last passed in 1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 579 of 1996 (R) allowed him to make a representation in respect of his grievances which were to be considered and decided by the General Manager of the concerned circle. However, he kept on harping the alleged dispute relating to the period 1981, 1987 and 1988 till date in respect of which even the records could not be available. He also submitted that the primary grievance of the petitioner which now remain is in the manner of calculation of D.P.S over the bills which has been raised earlier over a period of time. According to learned counsel for the Board it has been done in the manner provided under Clause 16.2 of the tariff notification in vogue from time to time. However, learned counsel for the respondent- Board fairly submitted that this Court, in writ jurisdiction may not get into the computational dispute relating to the charge of D.P.S and for the sole grievance which appears to be subsisting, petitioner may now once again approach the General Manager of the concerned area who may look into his remaining grievance. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the relevant pleadings on record. Though the petitioner has long history of dispute relating to raising of bills with the respondent- Board but after hearing the parties the immediate background relating to the grievance of the petitioner for filing of the present writ application has been indicated in the opening paragraph of the writ application. Though the petitioner has long history of dispute relating to raising of bills with the respondent- Board but after hearing the parties the immediate background relating to the grievance of the petitioner for filing of the present writ application has been indicated in the opening paragraph of the writ application. The Patna High Court in its judgment dated 2.12.1996 passed in C.W.J.C. No.579 of 1996(R) also took into account that several disputed questions of fact have been raised which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction. However it gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the General Manager by filing a representation for redressal of his grievances. Vide Annexure-10, such representation has been made wherein number of disputes inter-alia has been raised referred to in earlier paragraphs. The representation of the petitioner was disposed of by the General Manager vide order dated 14.6.1997 (Annexure-11). It is relevant to state herein that order dated 14.6.1997 is not under challenge in the present writ application. However the petitioner in the present writ application, as have been discussed herein above has subsisting grievance relating to calculation of the D.P.S amount over the bills raised from time to time and which even after passing of the order by the General Manager have not been corrected. 7. In such circumstance, when the order of General Manager deciding the representation of the petitioner where several of his grievances were raised and decided and the said order not being under challenge in the present writ application, it would not be proper to allow the petitioner to reopen things which may be settled by virtue of the order passed in 1997 by the General Manager. However, as submitted by the counsel for the respondent- Board, if the petitioner has any grievance relating to computation of D.P.S over the bills raised from time to time, this Court considers it proper that petitioner should once again approach the General Manager of the Singhbhum area under the respondent- J.S.E.B for redressal of the aforesaid grievance relating to the computation of D.P.S over the bills raised against the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, may file a representation along with all supporting facts and documents before the General Manager, of Singhbhum Area under J.S.E.B within a period of 3 weeks. Petitioner, therefore, may file a representation along with all supporting facts and documents before the General Manager, of Singhbhum Area under J.S.E.B within a period of 3 weeks. On receipt of such representation, in relation to the grievance of the D.P.S. as aforesaid, the General Manager shall proceed to decide the same in accordance with law after giving atleast one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for any consequential benefits in respect of electricity bills or refund of over payment made earlier the same may also be given effect within further period of 8 weeks, thereafter. It is also observed that if the petitioner is found to be liable for further dues, petitioner should also make payment of the same as per bills raised which the respondent- Board would be entitled to recover in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.