By an order of even date, this revision petition was dismissed in limine, for reasons to be recorded separately. The reasons are as under: (i) Today five revision petitions filed by the main petitioner, Kerala State Electricity Board have come up for admission hearing. Of these, four petitions have been filed after long delays ranging from 84 to as many as 338 days. This petition has been filed after a delay of 109 days. In each case, including this, an application for condoning the delay has been filed. It is a stereotyped application, the text of which is identical except for the dates of the respective impugned orders and the number of days of delay. The only reason cited for delay, in this as well as the three other petitions, is the same, viz., the time that the officials concerned of the petitioner Board took to (a) consider whether a revision petition ought to be filed and then (b) obtain the ‘sanction’ of the Secretary. These are no reasons, to say the least, for condoning such delays. If any thing, the application merely reflects administrative inaction. There being no adequate explanation for the delay, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. (ii) Still, the merits of the petition have been examined, mainly because electricity is a most valuable utility and its misuse or unauthorised use needs to be lawfully curbed. However, it is seen that the petitioner Board’s officials have themselves failed to establish the alleged unauthorised drawal of power by the respondent consumer. The site inspection report purporting to prove use of the respondent’s electric connection for an unauthorised purpose (unauthorized extension to a house in the neighbourhood) is unworthy of reliance for reasons given after detailed consideration, by both the Fora below There is no ground to differ from that finding of fact. Thus, on merits too, the petition fails. (iii) In this case, one of the main reasons for the Fora below to hold the site inspection report of the officials of the Board as unreliable is that it was not witnessed by any independent person(s) residing in the same vicinity as the house to which the supply line from the Temple (respondent) was alleged to have been unauthorizedly extended. In reply to a specific query it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that witnessing of such reports by independent person(s) is a requirement as per Board’s own circular instructions in this behalf. If this is so, the inspection report in question did not comply with the Board’s own instructions in this behalf. It would be useful for the Board to not only reiterate those instructions but also ensure compliance thereof by its field staff so that such reports rightfully earn acceptance on scrutiny.