JUDGMENT : N. P. Singh, J.–The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing a decision taken by the authorities of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in respect of assessment of revenue of consumers with defective matters. The decision which is under challenge was taken on 12th June, 1982, at the meeting of General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineers. In that meeting, it was decided that as many consumers were responsible for making the meters defective so that the consumption by them may not be correctly recorded, assessment of such consumers should be made in such a manner so that it may work deterrent against interference with the meters. With the aforesaid object decision was taken that "in the case of L.T. industrial consumers assessment will be made at 30% load factor and in the case of H. T. industrial consumers the assessment will be made at 45% load factor during the months their meters remained defective." 2. The petitioner runs a Re-Rolling Mill at Manpur in the district of Gaya. The petitioner had a connected load of 180 K.V.A since last several years. The bill used to be submitted to the petitioner in accordance with the tariff notified by the respondent-Board. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.10.1982 when the factory of the petitioner was closed being a Sunday, it was noticed by the Darwan that a Smoke was coming from near the transformer. The following day the petitioner informed the respondent-Assistant Electrical Engineer about the same. On the next day the Assistant Electrical Engineer and the Junior Engineer came to the factory and finding the meter defective allowed direct line to the petitioner. As a result of that the consumption was not being recorded on the meter. The petitioner claims to have informed the Electrical Executive Engineer about the defect in the meter and requested that bill be issued to the petitioner calculated on average basis till the meter is replaced. No step, however, was taken by the respondent-authorities to replace the burnt out meter of the petitioner despite of several reminders. The petitioner used to receive bills calculated on average consumption and the petitioner paid the same till October, 1983. The factory of the petitioner was, however, closed from 1st October, 1983 due to some trouble and disturbance in the factory. The petitioner used to receive bills calculated on average consumption and the petitioner paid the same till October, 1983. The factory of the petitioner was, however, closed from 1st October, 1983 due to some trouble and disturbance in the factory. Instead of replacing the burnt out meter or submitting a bill, on the basis of the average consumption, according to the petitioner, the respondent-Electrical Executive Engineer informed that even for the period from October, 1982 to November, 1983, the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,64,623. 96 being the balance amount calculated on the basis of 45% load factor. This demand was made on behalf of the Board, in view of the resolution passed at the meeting of the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineers, referred to above. The petitioner lodged a protest against the demand aforesaid because the petitioner had already made payment in respect of the bills served on the petitioner calculated on average basis. 3. Another bill was served on 10.1.1984 calculated on the basis of the 45% load factor for a demand of Rs. 6,57,737.74, out of which Rs. 2,50,832.50 related to annual minimum guarantee charges for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83 and a sum of Rs. 1,42,291.28 as interest on the aforesaid annual minimum guarantee charge. Ultimately the electric connection of the petitioner was disconnected on 31.1.1984 for non-payment of fie aforesaid dues. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Board. It has been asserted that in majority of cases the meters installed at the premises of the consumers are burnt due to the fault of the consumers and because of that it was decided to add 45% load factor in the bills for the months the meters remained defective. It has been stated that charges at the rate of 45% load factor have been introduced as a policy matter. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the impugned decision amounts to amending the tariff framed by the Board in exercise of the powers under sections 46 and 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which power can be exercised only by the Board and not by the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineers of the Board. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the impugned decision amounts to amending the tariff framed by the Board in exercise of the powers under sections 46 and 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, which power can be exercised only by the Board and not by the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineers of the Board. It was stated that it is not in dispute that the bills submitted to the petitioner including the charges calculated at the 45% load factor have been prepared on the basis of the decision taken on 12th June, 1982, in a meeting of the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineers held in the chamber of the Member (Finance) which cannot be held to be a decision of the Board. In the counter affidavit, this assertion has not been challenged. 6. Mr. R. K. Verma, who appears for the respondents, did not urge nor could have urged that the decision aforesaid shall amount to a decision of the Board. In such a situation I am unable to appreciate as to how without amending the tariff framed by the Board the decision taken by the Central Manager-Cum-Chief Engineers in the chamber of the Member (Finance) on 12th June, 1982, is being implemented. In view of the fact that the decision has far reaching consequences, and admittedly not having been taken by the Board, it is difficult, to uphold the validity of that decision which under challenge in the present writ application. 7. Although on behalf of the petitioner it was urged that the decision to charge 45% load factor during the months when the meters remained inoperative itself was irrational, for the present, I do not wish to express my opinion on the same because the question whether in cases where meters are found defective H.T. industrial consumers should be assessed at 45% load factor during the months their meters remained defective has to be considered by the Board. It is a matter of common experience that sometimes meters of ordinary as well as commercial consumers become defective in normal course and it takes months for the authorities of the Board to replace the same because of the perpetual shortage of meters. It is a matter of common experience that sometimes meters of ordinary as well as commercial consumers become defective in normal course and it takes months for the authorities of the Board to replace the same because of the perpetual shortage of meters. At the same time it is also well known that many unscrupulous ordinary and commercial consumers in ORDER :to derive unjust benefit make the meters defective, so that they may be charged on average basis for the consumption during the months meters remained inoperative. To tackle this situation some reasonable method is to be evolved by the Board, so that the honest consumers should not be harassed and unscrupulous ones should not take benefit of their own wrong. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed and the aforesaid decision taken on 12.6.1982 at the meeting of the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineers is quashed. The Board should take a fresh decision in that respect. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no ORDER :as to costs. Application allowed.