In case of a defective meter, it is the Electrical Inspector who shall determine the amount of energy supplied to the consumer.

1. In this case the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure-1 dated 11-7-1988, the bill raised on behalf of respondent 1 Board for the months of May and June, 1988 on the basis of 45% load factor as the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner for measuring the electricity consumed by the petitioner became defective.

2. There is no dispute with regard to the facts. In the premises of the petitioner there is a high tension electric connection, the nature of supply being at 11000 volts. The Board installed its own meter for measuring the supply of electrical energy. The meter was found defective. The meter was not replaced. The Board raised bill for May, 1988 for 6098 units. It again raised bill for May and also for June, 1988 on the basis of 45% load factor as contained in Anneuxre-1. The monthly bills of the petitioner before issuance of Annexure-1 never exceeded Rs. 12000/-, but in Annexure-1 it far exceeded that amount. This bill was raised under Annexure-3, the notification issued by the Board on 16-2-87 purported to be under Ss.46 and 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (in short, the Supply Act).

3. According to the petitioner, Annex-3 was without jurisdiction as it has been issued in contravention of S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (the Electricity Act) and the decision of the State Government under S.78A of that Act as contained in Annex.-2.

4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

5. The only question which requires to be decided in this case is whether in view of the provision of S.26 of the Electricity Act read with Cl.3 of the agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the Board, the latter could have raised bill on the basis of the notification as contained in Annex.-3.

6. So far Annexure-3 is concerned, it appears that in view of the decision of this Court in M/s Shree Vishnu Re-Rolling Mills V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board, (1986) Pat LR 1131), the Board in its meeting held on 23-1-1987 resolved as under :-

"In view of the observations of the Hon ble High Court in its order dt/-25-8-86 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3250/84 filed by Sri Vishnu Re-Rolling Mills against the Bihar State Electricity Board and others, the B.S.E. Board, in its Resolution No. 5873 taken in the 28th meeting of the Board held on 23-1-87 after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has decided and resolved to bill L.T.I.S. consumers at 30% load factors, H.T. consumers at 45% load factors and commercial cons. at 30% load factors, for the period the meter remained defective or non-working with effect from 12-6-1982.

Accordingly it is hereby notified that by virtue of the power conferred under Ss.46 and 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 , the Bihar State Electricity Board, has decided to bill LTIS consumers at 30% load factors, H.T. consumers at 45% load factors and commercial consumers at 30% load factors for the period meter remained defective or non-working with effect from 12-6-1982."

This resolution was purported to have been passed by the Board under Ss.46 and 49 of the Supply Act. The notification was issued on 16-2-1987. Clause 3(c) of the agreement provides as follows :-

"3(c): Subject to clause 6 appearing hereinafter in the agreement, in the event of any meter ceasing to register or found to be defective or the Boards employee having been unable to read meter, the reading during the period of such cessation or defective registration or non-reading shall be based on the average reading of the previous three months, in which the meter ran correctly and reading was duly recorded. In taking such average due regard shall be given to the conditions of working during the month under dispute and during the previous three months. In case of failure to take reading by the Boards employees, proper adjustment shall be made when actual reading is taken next."

Clause (6) of the agreement provides as follows :-

"Should the consumer dispute the accu