Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the revised punitive bill dated 16.6.2008 (Annexure-8) raised by the Bihar State Electricity Board, by which the petitioner has been asked to make payment of Rs. 1,74,79.090/- and for further direction to raise a fresh energy bill for the period from 3.4.2008 to 24.4.2008 in terms of Clause 9.16 of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007 and although denying the tampering or theft but in the event the said plea is not accepted then for a direction to correct the impugned punitive bill for 32 days instead of 100 days and also to declare the agreement dated 14.5.2008 entered into between the petitioner and the Electricity Board for payment of punitive bill in instalments as void under Section 23 of the Contract Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.1.2008 a new H.T.T.V. meter was installed and commissioned by the Bihar State Electricity Board in the petitioners factory, which was supplied and installed by M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. It is stated that on 1.2.2008 and 1.3.2008 the readings were made and the bills for the month of January and February, 2008 were raised, which were duly paid by the petitioner. On 2.4.2008, the officials of the Board visited the factory premises of the petitioner where it was detected that the meter was not functioning and the same was removed and sealed. A fresh meter was, thereafter, installed on 23.4.2008. The case of the petitioner is that without any approval from him merely a letter was written subsequently to the petitioner that the meter was being sent to the Laboratory of M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. situated at Udaipur for testing but the petitioner, not intending to be a party to the testing by the manufacturer itself did not present himself at the time of test. Subsequently, in the test report, it was alleged by M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. that the meter was tampered. Pursuant to the said report, an F.I.R. being Bihta P.S. Case No. 127/2008 was instituted on 13.5.2008 against the Director of the petitioner company and a punitive bill of Rs. 1,72,10,639/-dated 13.5.2008 was raised. Apprehending threat of disconnection, the petitioner filed a representation on 14.5.2008 for making payment of the amount under punitive bill in 24 equal monthly instalment, but the respondents agreed to accept 25% of the bill at the first instalment and the balance amounts to be paid in four equal monthly instaments, for which an agreement dated 14.5.2008 was entered into between the petitioner and the Electricity Board. The petitioner claims to have deposited Rs. 43,02,660/-on 5.2008 itself and thereafter three instalments out of four instalments till 14.8.2008.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities of the Board could not have sent the meter for testing at the laboratory of M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. or at any other Laboratory contrary to the requirement of fairness and the provisions of Clause 8.14(c)(iii) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code, 2007. It is submitted that under the said provision, the same could have been sent for testing either at the licensee (Electricity Board) Laboratory , independent Laboratory or Electrical Inspector as agreed by the consumer, i.e., the petitioner in the presence of the representatives of the Board. The licensee Board , however, without obtaining any such consent or agreement from the petitioner, but merely after sending the subsequent letter, on its own had sent the same for testing at the Laboratory of M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. which was itself the manufacturer of the said meter.

4. It is further contended that the said action of the Board is further vitiated since the said M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. was an interested party in the matter and being the manufacturer had entered into an agreement with the Board whereb