Shanmugam, J.

These three matters raise common questions of law. The facts of each case are given below separately for better appreciation of the case.

2. W.A.No.16/1998: The petitioner in O.P.No. 876/1994 is the appellant. The appellant Company is engaged in the manufacture of ice. By the impugned communication (Ext. P4) dated 29-11-1993 the Assistant Executive Engineer stated that on inspection of the electrical installation in the premises of the appellant on 10-11-1993 the following defects were noticed. (1) 'B' phase of the power meter is seen reversely rotating due to wrong connection of the C..T. (2) Tamper proof box is not provided,

3. On the basis of the said report the respondent issued an additional bill amounting to Rs. 68,636/-. The appellant submitted objection (Ext. P5) dated 29-12-1993, which did not dispute the defects pointed out by the Assistant Executive Engineer. The explanation of the appellant was that the defect was not occasioned by reason of their act. As against the assessment made in Exts. P3 and P4, the appellant filed the O.P. seeking to quash those communications and also for a mandamus to direct the respondents to refer the dispute to the El