The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the state to act in accordance with statutory provisions, the principle of estoppel, and the duty to act justly and fairly.

A counter affidavit has been filed pursuant to order dated 21.11.2013.

2. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that an inspection was conducted in his business premises in the year, 2009. Allegedly, excess load was found. Accordingly, a bill for about Rs 10 lacs was raised. The line was disconnected. Petitioner, being a businessman and having no option, entered into an agreement to pay the bills in installment. He defaulted. The line was disconnected. Again, he undertook to pay the dues and still could not pay. The line remained disconnected. He came to this Court praying that the bill, as raised pursuant to inspection, was not in accordance with the tariff and the Regulations which were statutorily binding on the Bihar State Electricity Board. The bills had to be drawn up in accordance with Section 126 of the Electricity Act, the Rules, Regulations of the Board which are statutorily binding. The entire scheme and the manner of calculation in such event has been given out in the Rules and Regulations (the Supply Code). As it was a case of excess load, not a case of theft, it was a case of unauthorized user and what could be calculated was only in respect of the excess load which was only 8 kilowatts. The consumer, not being aware of all technicalities, did not raise objection at the earliest but had made representation for the bills to be raised in accordance with law. Now, on behalf of respondents, the plea is being taken that once petitioner has entered into the agreement, he is estopped from raising the plea that the bill was not in accordance with law. To the specific question raised by the Court whether the bill is in accordance with the provisions of the tariff and the Rules and Regulations, there is absolutely silence. No effort has been made by the Board to justify the bill. To the contrary, petitioner has demonstrated that the bill is not only wrong but calculations are maliciously wrong. If calculations are made according to tariff which, in the present case, would be the Supply Code being Annexure 7 to the Supply Code and, in particular, Clause 3 thereof, there had to be a provisional assessment subject to objections to be raised followed by a final assessment. Nothing of that sort has been done. The billing could only be done in relation to the excess load found. To the contrary, on the face of it, the billing is for the entire load as found on punitive basis. Under no circumstances of unauthorized user of energy for an excess of 8 KW load can a bill of about Rs 10 lacs can be raised. In other words, on the face of it, the bill is de hors the tariff or the Supply Code which are statutorily binding on the Board. In other words, the bill undisputedly is not in accordance with law. If that be the situation, the question is can the respondents say that they have no obligation to follow law and obligation is only upon the consumer to pay as per agreement. In my view, it is too late in the day to say that even though there is an error apparent on the face of the record, they will not correct it as petitioner had agreed to pay the same in installment. There cannot be any agreement to pay the dues which are unlawful. Such an agreement would be contrary and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. Such attitude of the respondents is also deplorable. Let it be not forgotten that the respondents are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and bound, inter alia, by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well settled that if an act is to be performed in a particular manner then it could only be performed in that manner and all other modes are impliedly prohibited. These are well settled principles. State cannot say that I will act arbitrarily, coerce a person to enter into agreement for restoring electricity and then realize dues which are not legal dues. This high-handedness of the respondents must