Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner would assail Ext.P4 order by which Ext.P1 additional bill is confirmed by the Deputy Chief Engineer. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel to Exts.P1 bill and Ext.P2 statement. Ext.P2 will show that the additional bill was issued to the petitioner on two reasons. The first reason is that though the connection was given to the petitioner’s premises for domestic purposes, he has been using the energy supplied with effect from January 1999 for commercial purpose. i.e., for the conduct of a Sidda Vaidyasala, a private hospital. A total amount of Rs.61,314/- has been assessed on that account. The second reason is that the first and second phase of the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner were found to be not recording correct consumption from February 2000 and hence a further amount of Rs.44,031/- is assessed as per rules i.e. at two times the recorded consumption. Even though Mr.Suresh Kumar would assail the correctness of both the reasons, I am not impressed by the arguments raised challenging the first reason that consumer of a domestic connection cannot use that connection for other purposes. But more serious arguments were addressed by the learned counsel
