JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated 7th September, 1979 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1710 of 1978.

2. The respondent filed the writ petition challenging the legality of the notice served by the appellant issued in exercise of power under Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia on the ground that a bona fide dispute exists between the licensee and the consumer of electric energy and as such the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act will not apply. The case of the respondent - consumer is that the appellant has been supplying energy to the respondent hotel but the said respondent has not entered into any agreement and therefore the appellant is entitled to be charged on the basis of the actual consumption and not on the basis of any contract demand. The appellant, however, submitted bills in respect of the energy consumed on the basis of the contract demand which the respondent did not pay and for such default in payment of the amount charged under the bills the appellant issued notice of discontinuance under Section 24 of the Act. According to the respondent s case the bills submitted by the appellant being disputed, no notice could have been issued by the appellant under sub-section (1) of Section 24 and the matter can only be referred to the Electrical Inspector for a decision as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 24. The appellant disputed the aforesaid stand of the respondent and submitted that the respondent having failed to pay the bills raised by the appellant in respect of the energy consumed, the appellant was fully justified in issuing notice under Section 24(1) of the Act and there is no illegality in the same. The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that no agreement had been entered into between the licensee, namely, the Bihar State Electricity Board and the consumer, the respondent. It further came to the conclusion that in the absence of any agreement between the parties the Board was not entitled to raise the bills on the basis of the contract demand and can only charge on the basis of the actual consumption of energy. Finally, the High Court came to the conclusion that there existed a bona fide dispute between the licensee and the consumer, and therefore, until that dispute is resolved by a determination made by the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (2) of Section 24, the licensee was not entitled to issue notice of disconnection in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act. The High Court, therefore, quashed the notice of demand and the threat of disconnection and issued a mandamus to the licensee not to disconnect the supply line so long as the dispute is not resolved in accordance with law. The High Court also further held that until the dispute is finally resolved, the consumer would be liable to be charged on the basis of actual consumption of energy. The amount of accumulated arrear which was indicated in the notice of disconnection to the licensee was Rs. 3,01,449.30 upto March, 1979 which demand was quashed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. This Court on 1st May, 1981 directed that the respondents shall pay the amount due on the bills submitted to them by the appellant for the actual consumption and future bills will be paid by the respondents from time to time on the basis of actuals and such submission of bills and payments will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. By another Order dated 5th May, 1982 this Court further indicated that for the time being the Board will not collect any energy charges by the application of the multiplier of the two. Thereafter, as the respondent failed to pay the bills issued by the Board, the supply of electricity to the respondent was disconnected on 9th of May, 1984. The respondent, therefore, approached this Court by filin