Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Biren Poddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE two amendment applications filed by the petitioner are allowed. The relevant but very short facts which need be taken note of so as to apply two Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India are that after having been connected 250 KVA H.T. Load, the authorities of the Board recorded various meter readings on various dates (Annexure -2 series) and found the meter to be in order. However, on 3.4.2000, while taking the readings, they made the following note : - - "the meter is giving absurd reading. Hence, the meter may be declared defective." It is thereafter that a controversy erupted including issuance of the Bill for a sum of Rs. 3,24,161/ -, which is contained in Annexure -4. In the Bill, it has been mentioned as follows : - - "Meter defective from 2/2K as per Meter reading statement dated 3.4.2000 -38781."
(3.) THE petitioner has made a grievance that thereafter they filed the Writ Application wherein certain interim orders were passed but the respondents did not comply and in the mean time, the Board also filed a counter affidavit. However, to put the bone of contention in a nutshell is that the entire controversy blew out of proportions after the aforementioned reading which finally culminated in a Bill amounting to the tune of Rs. 42,88,647.00.;