S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division No. 1, Ranchi vide 2616 E/ 2000 dated 21.7.2000 whereby and whereunder the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and it was ordered to raise bill for the period upto March, 1991 on the basis of metre reading of 4673. The consequential bill as raised vide Memo No. 2942 dated 22.8.2000 has also been challenged by the petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the order aforesaid is not in accordance with the order of this Court passed in CWJC No. 549 of 2000 (R). It has been also decided on the basis of another metre reading which does not belong to the petitioner. In pursuance of Courts order, Mr. Vinod Kumar, Electrical Executive Engineer, Urban Electric Supply Division No. 1. Ranchi presented himself on 10th May, 2002 to assist the Court. He was asked to enquire whether metre number of petitioner is 863074 as shown in Annexure 2 or his metre number is 617824 as shown in the impugned order (Annexure 6).
(3.) MR Mehta, counsel for the Electricity Board referring the Courts affidavit filed by respondent No. 4 accepted that the impugned Annexure 6 has been passed on the basis of wrong meter and reading. The following statement has been made by the Executive Engineer in para 4 to his counter affidavit : "That on inspection, it was found that the meter of the consumer No. D -7787/D 81 bears the No. 863074/10A and is of Jaipur make. The meter was found defective and the final reading i.e. the reading when the meter went defective was 5114 unit. Initial reading of meter No. 863074 is to be taken into consideration for taking out the total consumption recorded in the meter. The average of the reading per month shall be taken for the purpose of billing the consumer on average basis after the meter become defective.";