An order passed should be on some rational basis and if an error in the order is apparent and does not require scanning of evidence, then the efficacious remedy is to make an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a consumer of the West Bengal State electricity Board (for short 'the WBSEB') filed a title suit challenging certain electricity bills raised by the WBSEB. Ultimately, being dissatisfied with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner moved a revisional application before this Court which was disposed of by an order on 19. 9. 97. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:" (F) Since the issue in the suit appears to be a meter dispute the matter is referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector for adjudication as to the quantum of charges to be paid by the petitioners from June, 1989 to April, 1995. Steps be taken by the parties to have the suit disposed of accordingly. "

( 2 ) PURSUANT to the order, the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector (for short "the D. C. E. I. "), as directed by the Chief Electrical Inspector, adjudicated the dispute and passed an order on 8. 4. 2003.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved the instant writ petition. At the time of moving the writ petition, orders were passed for filing the affidavit in opposition and the affidavit in reply. Parties were directed to maintain status quo. I find Affidavits have since been exchanged.

( 4 ) MR. Basu, learned advocate for the petitioner, assailing the order submitted, though the WBSEB failed to produce any record which was pointed out by the petitioner by letter dated 18th June, 2001, order has been passed mechanically accepting the contentions of the wbseb. The order is perverse as the same is based on no evidence and conclusion has been reached without testing the meter in question. Submission was made that the petitioners filed the relevant documents in support of their claim.

( 5 ) PERUSED the order. I find that the D. C. E. I, at the outset has indicated that the order is based on "facts and figures, examination of documents/papers submitted by both the parties and also from the facts as disclosed by both the parties during hearing. " However, i find it has been held that "the accuracy of the old meter cannot be judged at this stage as the same was taken out and was not tested by any independent Government Laboratory". It has also been further indicated in the order that "it is also seen from the records that during raising bills from June 89 to April 95 WBSEB claimed that the meter was sometimes defective and sometimes it was correct. But WBSEB could not prove with documents when and how the defect in the meter was detected and when and how the defect in the meter was rectified. " Even though it was found that the WBSEB could not prove their case with documents and the meter was not tested, yet the D. C. E. I, directed the WBSEB to prepare fresh bill.

( 6 ) IT assumes significance as correctly mentioned by Mr. Basu that the petitioner by letter dated 18 pointed out that no document was filed before the D. C. E. I, by the WBSEB in spite of several directions. Further, it has been stated in paragraphs 27 to 36 of the petition that the test report of the meter was not before the D. C. E. I, and the WBSEB failed to produce any document to substantiate its claim. The WBSEB while dealing with paragraphs 27 to 36 of the petition in paragraph 34 of its affidavit in opposition (for short "the affidavit") did not deny the fact that the WBSEB tailed to submit documents and if it had what were the documents, though in the said paragraph of the affidavit it has been stated "i deny that the board failed to produce document in support of their claim to the deputy Chief Electrical Inspector". Such an averment by the WBSEB in its affidavit, bereft of any details of the documents submitted, is not acceptable. Since the statements in the writ petition have not been controverted, the allegations made therein are deemed to be correct. If the D. C. E. I, sought to rely on documents furnished by the wbseb it should have clearly indicated the same in the order itself, instead of stating that