CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents is disposedof by the following order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a Company producing starch at its factory premises in the industrialestate at Peenya in Bangalore City. Thepetitioner is aggrieved by a consolidated billclaiming Rs. 24,887-60 towards the electricalenergy said to have been consumed by it. However, on receipt of that bill, the petitionercompany paid a sum of Rs. 3,944-00 by cheque whichwas the normal amount due in the precedingmonths. The bill with which the petitioner isaggrieved is at Annexure-A and it shows theconsumption at 170 units which in turn has beenmultiplied by 20 making out consumption ofenergy of 3400 units. Basis for multiplication isnot disclosed in the bill. From the earliercorrespondence addressed to the petitioner a truecopy of which is at Annexure-C to the petition,it is seen that the meter was not functioningproperly and certain steps in that behalf weretaken. But yet another correspondence on30-9-1986 a sum of Rs. 7,359-50 was claimed asshort claim. But no basis or details regardinghow the short claim occurred was ever disclosed. Even to this day, the Court was not appraiseddespite several opportunities given to file astatement of objections as to how the bill impugnedhas come to be issued. ( 3 ) MR. Ashok R. Kalyana Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the Karnataka Electricityboard, submits, since the filing of the petitionin terms of Regulation 30. 08 the short claims canbe recovered and therefore it cannot be said thatthe bill is without the authority of law. Regulation 30. 08 at clause (b) of the Regulations clearlyprovides that when the consumer is required topay the difference due to any errors in the bills,separate supplemental demand should be issuedfurnishing all the relevant details. That does notappear to have been done. Earlier, I havedescribed the impugned bill which is no morethan the result of multiplying figure 20 the actualregistered consumption of energy and adding taxdue thereon. The method of billing is not onlycontrary to Regulation 30. 08 of the Regulationsbut also contrary to all notions of fair-play andjustice. Therefore, it is arbitrary. As such, thebill is liable to be quashed without prejudice tothe rights of the 1st respondent-Board to collectwhatever the short claim may be in accordancewith the Regulations. ( 4 ) IF the petitioner disputes, the Regulations also provide as to how the dispute should beresolved. Therefore, it is arbitrary. As such, thebill is liable to be quashed without prejudice tothe rights of the 1st respondent-Board to collectwhatever the short claim may be in accordancewith the Regulations. ( 4 ) IF the petitioner disputes, the Regulations also provide as to how the dispute should beresolved. Therefore, the petitioner mustsucceed in getting an order of this Court quashingthe impugned bill. I, therefore quash the impugned bill at Annexure-A. ( 5 ) ANY amount paid by the order of this Court at earlier stage of the proceedings, thesame shall be refunded to the petitioner or athis option be adjusted towards the future dues. ( 6 ) RULE will accordingly issue and be made absolute. Writ Petition allowed. --- *** --- .