Asok Kumar Chakravarty, J. - (1.) The grievances of the writ petitioner are that it had its factory at Bisra, P.S. Falta where the respondents supply electricity through its electric meter bearing No. RHP 60631 since 12-2-93. The petitioner complained against the excessive billing on account of the defect in the electric meter. The bill of Rs. 1,25,226/- was raised for consumption of electricity for the month of June, 1993 against which it approached the District Consumers Forum and obtained relief in the appeal against the said order before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the appeal was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- on ad hoc basis pending final adjudication by the Electric Inspector and the respondents were directed to restore electric connection. On an appeal before this Court the Division Bench of this Court directed deposit of Rs. 70,000/- on ad hoc basis 'against the disputed bill for the month of June. 1993 and also to pay reconnection charges. Direction was also given for restoration of electricity if the said amount of Rs. 70,000/- was deposited by the petitioner on 5-10-93. It was followed by an order of reconnection dated 17-10-93. The respondent again disconnected electric supply on 10-11-93 as bills for July to October, 1993 were not paid The writ petitioner accordingly filed this application praying for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding respondents to withdraw the said bills from July to October '93, issuing fresh bills for the said period and to restore the electric connection directing the Electrical Engineer to submit a report and for prohibiting further disconnection without the leave of this Court.
(2.) In the affidavit-in-opposition it was alleged that the present claim of the respondents against the petitioner for consumption of electricity in the disputed period are Rupees 70,429/- for July, 1993, Rs. 68,217/- for August, 1993, Rs. 899/- for September, 1993 and Rs. 5,177/- for October, 1993. The petitioner having not paid the said bills that its line was again disconnected on 10-11-93. Regarding the sub-judice bill for June, 1993 it was alleged that the matter is still pending before the Division Bench and that the line was restored after disconnection in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. It was denied that the Board has drawn the bills incorrectly or raised exorbitant bills. The State Electricity Board accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ application.
(3.) Mr. Moloy Bose, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted, that no notice of disconnection was given to the petitioner neither at the time of the first nor at the second disconnection. He drew the attention of the Court about the eratic meter readings which are mentioned in the bills themselves. The meter reading being thus defective the Board had to draw up the bills provisionally on the basis of earlier consumption of electricity in the same period of the earlier year. It appears that the bill of July. 1990 was drawn in terms of consumption recorded in the bill of July, 1992 while that of August was drawn in terms of August, 1991. Mr. Bose submitted that there should be a fixed criterion for such quantification of energy consumed even when the bills are raised provisionally. He also submitted that the late payment of surcharge included in the bill of September, 1993 had no basis and that of October, 1993 must be patently mistaken as it can only record consumption for only one day the electric connection having been given on 17-10-93 and the reading having been taken on 18-10-93. He further submitted that it was a duty of the board to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act since it has itself admitted that the meter shows eratic reading.;