By an order passed today, the revision petition was dismissed in limine, for reasons to be recorded separately. 2. The reasons are as under: ..2.. (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 132 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 reason merely reflects unexplained administrative sloth and indifference. However, by chance as it were, there is no delay in filing in the fifth petition, viz., R. P. no. 770 of 2010. I am, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay in this case. The petition is thus liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. (ii) Still, I have examined the merits of the petition, mainly because electricity is a most valuable utility and its misuse or unauthorised use needs to be lawfully curbed. Yet, it is seen that the petitioner Board’s officials have .3. failed to establish the alleged unauthorised drawal of power by the respondent consumer. The site inspection report of the officials of the Board purporting to establish that the respondent/consumer’s used his electric connection (meant for agricultural purpose) for an unauthorised purpose (building of his house) is itself an unreliable document, as has been held, on detailed consideration, by both the Fora below and there is no ground to differ from that finding of fact. Thus, on merits too, the petition fails. (iii) Before parting with the matter, I would like to observe that in this case, one of the main reasons why the Fora below held the site inspection report of the officials of the Board as unreliable is the fact that the report was not drawn up in the presence of (any accordingly witnesses by) any independent person(s) residing in the same vicinity as the complainant/consumer, though I am given to understand by the learned counsel for the petitioner (in reply to a specific query) that drawing up such spot inspection reports in the presence of independent person(s) is a requirement mandated by the Board’s own circular instructions in this behalf. Thus, the inspection report in question does not comply with the Board’s own instructions in this behalf. If there were no such instructions, it would be advisable for the Board to issue ..4.. such instructions on grounds of equity and fairness and as a minimum guarantee of the consumers’ rights on the on hand and those of the Board’s own as a public authority on the other.