the authorities that connections were not misused and not put to commercial purpose by the Petitioner society, respondent authorities failed to appreciate the same, thereby making the entire process a lopsided and an empty formalit5r. According to the learned counsel, when the 4rt, respondent himself admitted that inspection report contained errors and it was a mistake on his part, frxing the liability onto the Society would amount to miscarriage of justice. So far, petitioner Society is paying bills regularly without any arrears, as such, it is not a case of accumulated arrears of payment. On the contrary, it is the ofhcial respondents who ought to have refunded the already collected amounts, paid to prefer the appeal before the authorities, to prove their bona fzdes, contends the learned counsel. It is submitted that the respondent authorities are now threatening to disconnect the power connections and trying to hamper the smooth functioning of the Society more specifically, trying to deprive the residents from accessing basic amenities like water supply, etcetera. 3. At the admission stage, this Court, after hearing learned counsel on both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order, particularly the observations made at para 25,
