JUDGMENT
R.M. Prasad, J.
1. As in all these four writ petitions the question involved is common, with the consent of the parties, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. In all the writ petitions the petitioners are aggrieved by raising electric bills on the basis of enhanced connecting load than what was agreed upon as per the agreement entered into between them and the Board. The case of the petitioners is that originally connecting load was less then for which demand has been calculated and raised. It appears that Anti Theft Power Squad of the Board, papulary known as Vigilance Cell’ had inspected the premises of the petitioners sometime in the year 1988 and found that their connecting load was more than the sanctioned load as agreed in terms of the agreement. It is admitted fact that the reports prepared, on the basis of said inspection, were served on the petitioners, after the inspection was made giving details about the utilisation of load more than the sanctioned load by them. However, they did not raise any objection but when the impugned bills were raised they filed writ petitions and the interim order was passed than pending disposal, petitioners shall not be subjected to any demand based on enhanced load factor. Accordingly, the bills are being raised uptill now.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in a large number of cases, this Court held that in case the consumer is taking more than agreed load of energy, then the Board can charge higher rate but than can be done only after giving opportunity to the consumer to show cause and directed that the board may give fresh notice to the petitioner as to why higher rate should not be charged for taking energy more than the agreed load of energy. It is not suggested that the petitioners were given any such opportunity before charging higher rates in the impugned bills.
4. However, learned Counsel for the Board has contended that though the petitioners were served with the reports on the same day when the inspection was made but they never raised any objection and filed present writ petitions after almost nine months. It is submitted that the writ petitions have remained pending now for almost 12 years and as such, according to him, no fruitful purpose will be served and the compliance of the aforementioned principle will be empty formality.
5. However, having realised the difficulty learned Counsel for the parties have rightly suggested that the petitioners should move the Member, Revenue of the Board for fresh consideration and till then the interim order bassed in the present cases may continue.
6. Accordingly, all the four writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners should file representation before the Member. Revenue of the Board along with a copy of this order within two weeks whereupon the Member. Revenue of the Board shall examine and sort out of the dispute amicably within four Weeks of filing of the representation. The petitioners should co-operate in the matter for amicable settlement. The Board shall issue fresh bills in accordance with the final decision arrived at by the Member, Revenue of the Board. Till the disposal of the representation the interim order passed in the present cases by this Court shall continue.