Heard the counsel for the parties.

1. The short question which has been called for consideration in this case is whether the Electricity Board can raise average bills on account of default in the meter installed in the petitioner's premises by applying the process of load factor.

2. Facts of the case, in brief is that' the petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents Board. The meter installed within his premises for the purpose of calculating electricity consumption became defective and it was pointed out by the petitioner to the respondent-Board. Consequently, the Electricity Board raised a bill purportedly on the basis of average billing claiming that the consumer was liable to pay the electrical charges showing connected load as 2 KW and for two hundred units consumption. The petitioner challenged the bill raised by the Electricity Board and filed writ petition being CWJC No. 2389 of 2000. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court by order dated 6.5.2002 set aside the impugned bill with a direction to the respondent Board to raise a fresh bill on the basis of average consumption of previous three months for corresponding three previous year or AMG which ever is highest, but while raising the bill, the Board must take into consideration the average three months consumption of three months and maintain a record while raising the bill.

Pursuant to the order, the Board had raised a fresh bill Vide annexure 6 fixing average consumption of the petitioner for 125 KWH units on the basis of load factor and assessing 20% of the connected load as average consumption.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned bill on the ground that the manner of assessing average bill is faulty and not in consonance with the law. Referring to a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Dumraon Textile limited VS. Bihar State Electricity Board and Another judgment in the case of Shyam Steel Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board passed in CWJC No. 3192 of 1999, the learned counsel submits that it has been held in the aforesaid judgment that the Board cannot assess the average consumption by referring to the method of load factor and the assessment of electricity consumed on the basis of average consumption shall have to be done only by resorting to the method as laid down in the Electricity Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel also relied on the case of Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwal VS. Bihar State Electricity Board (1989(2) BLJ 236) [:1989 PLJR 40].

4. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Electricity Board, but learned counsel for the respondents is present.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner was a domestic consumer of electricity and an agreement was executed between the Board and the consumer that the charges for electricity consumed will be in accordance with the reading in the Electric meter. The meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was found to be defective. Under such circumstances, under the rules prescribed, the Board did have the authority to raise bills on the basis of average billing for the period when the meter remained defective, though the electricity continued to be consumed by the consumer. However, the method of computing the bill for the purpose of average billing has also been laid down wherein it has been stated that the amount of consumption shall be assessed on the basis of consumption recorded in the previous bills of previous three months of the previous year, or the three months period prior to the date when the meter became defective. The Board, therefore, cannot resort to any other method of computing bills for average consumption and it cannot raise demands on the basis of the work load in cases where the meter is found defective. This issue has been adequately settled by the division bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Kumar Agarwal Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board reported in (1989(2) BLJ 236