- (1.) The petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated October 4,2004 is seeking a mandamus commanding the first respondent and its officials to bill him on the basis of actual consumption shown by the new meter installed by the respondents in the premises, without adding any amount payable for any previous disputed period.
(2.) It appears that disputes and differences arose between the parties in around January, 2002 when, on inspection, the existing meter was found to be defective. The defective meter was replaced, and then the first respondent alleged that someone tampered with the new meter. Though it registered an FIR, it chose not to initiate any proceedings under the Electricity Act, 2003. On the contrary, it started issuing average bills. The petitioner moved the first Article 226 petition in 2002, the second in 2003, and the third, the present one, in 2004. This Court made an order directing testing of the meter. It is submitted that the person who was directed to test the meter has expressed his inability to test it.
(3.) The question is whether the first respondent was entitled to issue the average bills. According to the petitioner, the allegation of unauthorised use of energy is incorrect. Mr. Bose, Counsel for the petitioner, has said that there is no basis to say that someone tampered with the new meter. Mr. Nayek, Counsel for the respondents, submits that instead of initiating' proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the first respondent decided to issue average bills. He is unable to show any provision of law that empowered or entitled the respondents to issue the average bills on the ground that someone had tampered with the new meter.;