1. The issue in this case relates to raising of bills to an electrical connection where the meter installed has become defective. And the controversy springs from the provisions of a notification issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board which remained in existence for a brief period. The notification in question was issued on 31.5.2001. It under-went an amendment on 28.7.2001. It was published in the gazette on 5.11.2001 and it was finally replaced by the Boards tariff coming into force with effect from 1.11.2002.

2. The meters becoming defective or being rendered defective by the consumers seems to be a chronic problem for the Board. And it is for that reason that special provisions are to be made in the Boards tariff for raising bills to connections with defective meters. In the 1993 tariff the provisions for raising bill to electrical connections with defective meters were contained in clause 16.8. The clause, in substance, provided for raising bill on the basis of "average consumption of previous 3 months from the date of meter being out of order or the average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous years consumption or the minimum monthly guarantee whichever is the highest."

3. It, however, seems that the Board took the view that meters were deliberately made defective by the consumers for taking advantage of average billing provided under the 1993 tariff and, thus, they were able to derive undue advantage and put the Board to considerable financial loss. It was presumably under this belief that notification No. COM/TAR/904/2000-271 was issued on 31.5.2001 which was later slightly modified by another notification, dated 28.7.2001. By the two notifications, a basic change was made in that the responsibility to provide a good meter to replace the earlier defective one was shifted to the consumer. The obligation cast upon the consumer was made further stringent by adding the condition that on the meter becoming defective, for the first three months the consumption would be assessed and billed @ 100 units/HP for LTIS-I and 200 units/HP for LTIS-II and LTIS-III of the sanctioned load or part thereof. The notification further provided that in the event of non-replacement of the defective meter by the consumer after the expiry of three months from the date the meter became defective, the assessment and billing of consumption would be done @ 300 units/ HP for LTIS-I and 400 units/HP of the sanctioned load or part thereof for LTIS-II and LTIS-III category. The number of units per H.P. fixed for LTIS-II and LTIS-III categories was later reduced to 150 for the first three months and 300 after expiry of the period of three months vide notification, dated 28.7.2001.

4. Perhaps, it was later felt that the legal validity of the arrangement envisaged under the two notifications, was not entirely free from doubt and presumably for that reason the arrangement was given up and for billing of connections with defective meters a slightly different provision was made in the 2002 tariff.

5. In this case, however, we are concerned with the bills raised on the basis of the provisions of the notifications, dated 31.5.2001 and 28.7.2001.

6. Though the legal validity of the tariff dated 31.5.2001 has been expressely challenged in the writ petition and though Mr. S.D.Sanjay, counsel for the petitioner also made submissions on the legality of the notification, I find that this case can be disposed of even without going into the question of validity of the notification.

7. The facts of the case are brief and simple and can be stated thus. The petitionar is a consumer under low tension industrial service II category. It took the electricity line with 30 HP. connected load on 8.2.1999. On 29.6.1999 the statutory agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Board and in November, 1999 the line was energised. The petitioners unit commenced production from 21.2.2000.

8. It was given the first bill on 31.12.1999. T