( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the demand of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 1183. 36 which has been raised by revised bill dated 1st November, 1980 in respect of the period from 11th January, 1973 to 29th September, 1973.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner is the owner of House No. A-31, West End, New Delhi. During the years 1970 to 1973 the said house had been let out to different tenants. There are different electricity meters which are installed in the said house. One meter which was fixed during that period was Meter No. 18 K-513626-PD/wec, for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as meter C . This meter, I am told, pertains to the supply of electricity to the first floor of the house in question.

( 3 ) ON 25th October, 1977 the petitioner received an electricity bill for Rs. 3845. 92. The bill merely indicated that the demand was "assessed 24037 units from 20th March 1970 to 21st September 1973 base 21st September 1973 to 20th May 1974". Immediately on the receipt of the said bill, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 26th October, 1977 protesting against the demand so raised. Reference in this letter was made to the verbal enquiries which the petitioner had made from the DESU office at R. K. Puram. He had then been told that the aforesaid meter C was found to be defective and had been replaced in the year 1973 and that now the demand was being calculated in respect of the earlier period from March, 1970 to September, 1973 on the basis of consumption recorded by the new meter. In his representation the petitioner challenged the legality of the demand so raised. He also asked for the readings of this meter for the respective dates for which the bill was raised. From the tenor of the letter it appears that the petitioner did not accept that the meter which had been replaced was defective.

( 4 ) NO reply was received to the aforesaid representation but, on the other hand, the petitioner received four notices to show cause as to why his electricity should not be disconnected on account of non-payment of thecity bill. It is not necessary to give any further details about these notices except to note that on 1st November, 1980 the earlier bill dated 25th October, 1977 was revised and a fresh bill for Rs. 1183. 36 was sent to the petitioner. The original demand raised by the bill dated 25th October, 1977 was withdrawn and the revised assessment was in respect of the period 11th January, 1973 to 21st September, 1973 and was based on the corresponding billing period of 18th January, 1974 to 13th September, 1974. The petitioner once again wrote a letter dated 4th December 1980 protesting against the said demand. The petitioner referred to his earlier letter dated 26th October, 1977 and repeated his contentions once again. It was also stated in this letter that the petitioner s request for transmission of dispute for arbitration to the Electrical Inspector of the Government had also not been heeded. According to the petitioner the demand which was raised was wholly arbitrary and without following the principles of natural justice.

( 5 ) THE petitioner did not get any reply to the aforesaid letter except that he once again got a notice dated 17th September, 1982 for disconnection of electricity on account of non-payment of the bill. The petitioner, however, did elicit some information from the respondent to the queries which he had raised when the respondent wrote a letter dated 28th June, 1983. Along with this letter, copy of the reading chart for the period from 31st March, 1970 to 15th November, 1974 was enclosed. It was stated in this letter that the meter was replaced on 21st September, 1973. It was accepted that the responsibility of seeing whether the meter was defective or not was of the Department but it was stated that this responsibility was discharged by replacement of the defective meter as and when it was found necessary. The petitioner once again s