In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the plain and simple question Involved is as to the true content and scope of section 24 (1) (first part) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act 9 of 1910) hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Respondent No. 1 the Bihar State Electricity Board (to be called the 'Board' hereinafter) is a statutory body and a licensee under the provision of the Electricity (Supply, Act, 1948 (Act 54 of 1948) read with the Act, and the other respondents are its officers. The petitioners is a consumer of electrical energy supplied to it, electrical installations having been set up and energised in the premises of the petitioner from the month of October, 1976. The prayer made in this writ application is for the issuance of an appropriate writ/direction quashing the notice served by the licensee Board, respondent No.1 on the petitioner by a letter cum-notice dated 10th/12th May, 1979, It copy whereof has been incorporated in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

2. The only question which calls for our decision in this case is as to whether the threat of disconnection after giving 7 clear days notice as contained in Annexure 1 served by respondent No. 1 on the petitioner is tainted with illegality or can be said to be in consonance with the provisions of section 24(1) (first part) of the Act. At this place, in view or the submissions made at the Bar, it would be proper for us to indicate at the outset that learned Counsel for the respondents did not contend-rather conceded-that, if there was a bona fide dispute between a licensee and a consumer of electrical energy. Then the provisions of section 24(1) (first part) of the Act, will not apply, unless the controversy or the dispute is resolved at a proper forum and in accordance with law.

3. While, on the one hand, Mr. A.K. Sen, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has confined his submission only to one legal aspect involved, namely, that the instant case is one of those cases in which the bona fide of the dispute is writ large on the materials on record, on the contrary, Mr. Dinesh Charan, learned Counsel for the respondents, has tried to persuade us to hold that there was no bonafide dispute at all. Indeed, learned Counsel for the respondents at one stage wanted us to go a step further and hold that, on the facts and in the 'circumstances of the case there was a concluded agreement or con contract between the parties (namely, the petitioner and respondent No.1), the term of which can be called from pieces of correspondence. He also fairly admitted that the so called pieces of correspondence were only unilateral, namely, letters sent by way of protest from the petitioner from time to time of which we shall take notice at an appropriate and apt place.

4. The submission or learned Counsel for the respondents as aforesaid with regard to an inference of a concluded agreement to be drawn from pieces of correspondence available on the record seems to have been rightly abandoned in this proceeding. This we say on account of the admitted fact that in the counter affidavit the stand taken by the respondent Board is that there was no agreement entered into at any time between the parties ever since the date of the energisation of the installations in the petitioner’s premises. A letter written by the resident Engineer of the Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, which is a unit of the Board, dated 11th March, 1978: a copy whereof has been marked annexure-17 to the petitioner's rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, clearly states in express terms that the petitioner must execute "a fresh agreement in the prescribed form as required to be executed vide para 6-164 of the Board's Financial And Accounts Code, Chapter VI". Whereas the petitioner's stand is that it had done its part of the job by signing the agreement and handing is over to an officer who was duly authorised in that behalf by the Board,