M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. MB. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -Board.
(2.) A short question falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondent -Board was justified in raising bill on the basis of minimum guarantee for the period when meter was either found burnt or defective or ceased to function. Petitioner was having H.T. connection in its factory premises having load of 135 K.V.A. Upto August, 1998 the bill was raised on the basis of actual energy consumption recorded in the meter installed in the factory premises of the petitioner and the petitioner duly paid all the bills raised by the Board. The meter became defective which was confirmed by the officials of the Board after inspection made on 16.9.1998. The respondent -Board further raised bill for the month of September, 1998 but instead of raising bill on the basis of average consumption the Board raised the bill on the basis of monthly minimum guarantee.
(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the bill for the month of September and October, 1998 was raised on the basis of 20942 units, whereas if the average of previous three months would have been taken, it would work out to 6004 units.;