JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the electrical energy bills (Annexures 8 and 10). Peter Schuck said, "If officials perceived that performing their legal duty may generate personal cost that exceed their duty threshold, they may refrain from acting." The Orissa State Electricity Board (for short the 'Board') a public utility organisation as it is, still remains to all concerned an unrevealed sphere of activities. Its customers though suffer to a large extent in many ways, yet they have no knowledge of its administrative functions which seem to be complicated and inundated with procedures, regulations and constraints. We have no intention to throw insinuation at its Personnel Management, but this is the impression one gets while looking to its working system, though the fault may not be entirely their's own. At the same time we also decry the action and inaction of its customers in contributing to the problems of this large organisation in our State. Now the problem at hand. 2. The Petitioner took an electrical service connection to his commercial unit within the Jagatpur Industrial Estate from the Orissa State Electricity Board (for short the 'Board'). The connection was one-phase commercial line with a contracted load of 3 K.W.. The line was charged on 13.1.1984. 3. The Board inspite of several letters of request by the Petitioner did not submit the monthly bill till 1988. In April, 1988, the Board submitted a bill under Annexure-5 for an amount of Rs. 9,295.80 paise covering the period from January, 1984 to March, 1988. The Petitioner did not raise any objection to this bill, but, to avoid hardship for payment of the same by his letter (Annexure 6) requested opp. party No. 2 (the Executive Engineer) to allo him payment by 9 monthly equal instalments. Nothing was done on this letter. 4. On 2.8.1989, during a regular verification, the Junior Engineer of the Board inspected the premises of the Petitioner and found the meter supplied by the Board to have been burnt because of overloading, He found the "connected load" was 8.112 K.W. instead of the "contracted load" of 3 K.W. At the place, the Junior Engineer found the Petitioner had within his Unit machineries like Grinder, Drilling Machine, Welding Machine, etc., and other appliances. He indicated all these particulars including the "connected load" as 8.112 K.W. in his report, the Load Survey Report (Annexure 7). 5. After such detection, a revised bill for Rs. 27,369.24 was submitted which included the arrear amount under Annexure 5 as well as the amount calculated on the basis of overdrawal charges for a period of one year preceding the date of detection. The Petitioner objected to this bill alleging that such enhanced calculation was due to "mistake of fact" and "unintentional error" and therefore, he requested the opp. party No. 2 to revise the bill calculating @ minimum consumption of 51 units, as under Annexure 5. 6. Thereafter, another enhanced bill dated 6.7.1990 under Annexure 10 for Rs. 30,108.78 was submitted covering the arrear under Annexures 5 and 8 as well as for the period from 8/89 to 3790. This was on the basis of connected load of 8.112 K.W.. When no payment was made pursuant to the bill, the line was disconnected on 18.5.1990. The Petitioner after such disconnection, made a representation, but since no step was taken for restoring the connection, the Petitioner filed this writ on 26.10.1990 claiming the action of the opposite parties as mala fide and arbitrary. 7. The Board in its counter while controverting the allegations in the petition justified its action stating that there was no mala fide on its part and that the Board's action in calculating the amount on account of the unauthorised consumption of the electrical energy at the minimum rate was in conformity with the Board's regulation. 8. We have heard Mr. B.B. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B.K. Naik, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. Mohanty advanced an extensive argument with reference to the various regulations framed by the Board to which we will refer later. But we propose to consolidate the points of Mr. Mohanty into the following four major heads: (i) That the Board's negligent act in not taking the meter reading and in not submitting the bills regularly as provided under the regulations put the Petitioner to untold hardship and misery. (ii) That claiming of enhanced amount on the basis that the connected load was found to be 8.112 K.W. as on 2.8.1989 was arbitrary and mala fide. (ii) That claiming of enhanced amount on the basis that the connected load was found to be 8.112 K.W. as on 2.8.1989 was arbitrary and mala fide. (iii) The bills under Annexure-8 an 10 need re-calculation and that too only on the basis of the contracted load of 3 K.W. and not at 8.112 K.W. (iv) The disconnection of the electric line without any notice as provided under the Act was unjust and mala fide. 9. We may take up the first point of Mr. Mohanty about the Board's negligent act as alleged by him. The Orissa State Electricity Board (supply Regulations 1981) are the set up regulations applications to the supply of electricity energy by the Board to different consumers. Regulation 22 provides that the Board shall provide the meters required for measurement of the electricity consumed by the consumer and shall charge a monthly rental for the same in accordance with the charges as laid down in the 'Schedule of Service and Miscellaneous Charges', so long the meter installed is in order. In the present case, the meter admittedly was installed by the opposite party Board. Clause (3) of Regulation 22 predicates that the reading of the Board's meters shall be taken as far as possible, in the presence of the representative of the consumer on the last day of each calendar month. Clause (f) of Regulation 22 provides the quantum of electrical energy supplied to a consumer shall be ascertained by means of a defect-free meter. This regulation shows that the meter shall be installed by the Board in usual course as far as possible reading of the meter shall take place on the last day of each calendar month. In the present case, the line was charged on 13.1.1984. The Petitioner from the year 1985 wrote to the opp. party No. 2 requesting him to submit the bills for his information and payment which the latter did not do until he submitted the bill under Annexure 5, an this was in April, 1988. (Though the Petitioner disputes the receipt of the bill during 1989). The bill was for the period from January, 1984 to March, 1988 and the amount was as already stated Rs. 9,295.80 paise. This bill did not indicate the meter reading. Thus, it is apparent that by 18.4.1988, nobody visited the premises to take the meter reading. (Though the Petitioner disputes the receipt of the bill during 1989). The bill was for the period from January, 1984 to March, 1988 and the amount was as already stated Rs. 9,295.80 paise. This bill did not indicate the meter reading. Thus, it is apparent that by 18.4.1988, nobody visited the premises to take the meter reading. It is also astonishing to note that the amount of Rs. 9,295.80 paise is found to have been charged on the basis of minimum consumption of 51 units and the appropriate column showing the "present reading of the meter" as "Nil". This clearly indicates that nothing was known about the condition of the meter as on 18.4.1988 and this shows none visited the premises of the Petitioner, an therefore, it is obvious that as a matter of abundant caution and on the face of mounting pressure from the side of the Petitioner to submit the bills, the personnel of the Board submitted the bill on the basis of minimum charge. The Petitioner under Annexure 6, requested the opp. party No. 2 to allow him to pay the dues in nine equal monthly installments. But this was not done. Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the contention of Mr. Mohanty that Annexure 5 was submitted for payment to the Petitioner without anybody verifying the meter and this was utter negligence on the part of the Board's staff which forced the Petitioner for payment of accumulated arrears for four years at a time. Another disquieting feature in the action of the Board in verifying the premises of the Petitioner on 2.8.1989. It was for the first time that the Junior Engineer of the Board visited the premises of the Petitioner more than five years after the line was charged. The Junior Engineer on 2.8.1989 found the meter to have been burnt and the connected load was 8.112 K.W. We may say that had the Board thought it wise and proper and would have acted with due diligence in taking a regular reading of the meter, the alleged overloading and such unauthorised consumption of electrical energy might have been detected even prior to 2.8.1989. Thus, there was gross negligence on the part of the Board in not taking down the meter reading in time. The Board has not come forward with any explanation for these lapses. 10. The second contention of Mr. Thus, there was gross negligence on the part of the Board in not taking down the meter reading in time. The Board has not come forward with any explanation for these lapses. 10. The second contention of Mr. Mohanty is, whether the enhanced bill under Annexures 8 and 10 was an act of mala fide and arbitrariness. In the bill under Annexure 8, the amount is found to be Rs. 27,369.24 paise. The amount included the amount in arrear under Annexure 5 plus the charges upto September, 1988 on the basis of 3 K.W. and the rest period from 10/88 to 7/89 on the basis of connected load of 8.112 K.W. Annexure 10 is the bill of Rs. 30,108.17 paise and this was after adjustment of certain amounts paid by the Petitioner during 1990. This bill covers the period from August, 1989 to March, 1990 and the amount calculated on the basis of enhanced connected load. With reference to this two bills, Mr. Mohanty submitted that though the Load Survery Report, Annexure 7 shows that the Petitioner had within his premises, the Drilling Machine, Grinder and Welding Machine and other apparatus, there is no material or proof that the Petitioner as on 2.8.1989 had connected these machineries with the electric line supplied by the Board to his premises. Mr. Mohanty was critical in his submission that merely seeing these machineries the Junior Engineer jumped into the conclusion that they were connected with main supply line and this according to Mr. Mohanty, learned the Junior Engineer in committing an error in calculating the enhanced load at the rate 8.112 K.W. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mohanty that the Petitioner did not connect the aforesaid machineries to the main line in question. On this we may point out that after Load Survey Report dated 2.8.1989. The Board submitted the revised bill for Rs. 27,369.24 paise under Annexure 8 and the Petitioner under Annexure 9 wrote to the opp. Mohanty that the Petitioner did not connect the aforesaid machineries to the main line in question. On this we may point out that after Load Survey Report dated 2.8.1989. The Board submitted the revised bill for Rs. 27,369.24 paise under Annexure 8 and the Petitioner under Annexure 9 wrote to the opp. party No. 2 complaining that the said bill was calculated at double the rate with an average 576 units instead of 51 units and in the said letter, he mentioned that such enhancement might have been due to 'mistake of fact' and "unintentional error", It is surprising to note that the Petitioner did not mention that in fact he had not connected the machineries to the main line for which the enhanced revised bill under Annexure 8 should have been submitted to him for payment. The Petitioner signed Annexure 7, the Load Survey Report in token of his being present at the time of inspection. It was submitted by Mr. Mohanty that the Petitioner was forced to sign in the report on the face of threat of disconnection. With respect, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mohanty. There was an omission on the part of the Petitioner not to challenge the alleged unauthorised consumption of election energy upto 8.112 K. W. in his letter Annexure 9. Further, the contention of Mr. Mohanty at this belated stage with regard to the disputed facts cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Petitioner did not come forward with a case in the writ petition that he did not connect those machineries with the main line in questions. In this regard, we may refer to para 13 of the writ petition where the Petitioner stated that the Junior Engineer made a rough calculation on the basis of each item. n the 'apparatus' available in the factory premises. Here itself had he not really connected those machineries to the main line, he would have certainly mentioned the same while raising a dispute with regard to the amount under the bill in question. n the 'apparatus' available in the factory premises. Here itself had he not really connected those machineries to the main line, he would have certainly mentioned the same while raising a dispute with regard to the amount under the bill in question. No doubt, with regard to the signature, he has alleged that he was forced to sign but he has not uttered a word that the machineries were not connected and that he never consumed energy upto the load of 8.112 K.W...In the rejoinder at the belated stage he came forward with a case that these machineries belonged to his customers. This explanation is wholly unacceptable. Therefore, we hold that the Petitioner in fact, connected the machineries as indicated under Annexure 7 to the main line which enhanced the load upto 8.112 K.W. and therefore, the Board was justified in calculating the energy charges on the basis of enhanced connected load. The question remains to which period this unauthorised consumption would relate to. Therefore, the Board did not act mala fide in calculating the enhanced amount. 11. The third contention of Mr. Mohanty relates to the correctness of the revised bills (Annexures 8 and 10). In this connection, Mr. Mohanty drew our attention to the provisions contained in Regulations 36-A and 37 of the Board's Regulations. Regulation 36-A (i) of the Board's Regulations prescribes that no consumer shall unauthorisedly instal any machinery, appliances or additional load without prior written sanction of the concerned Engineer. Sub-clause (ii) of Regulation 36-A provides: On detection of such unauthorised user diversion or transfer, the quantum of unauthorised consumption shall be determined by the same ratio as unauthorised load stands to the authorised load. On assessment of the quantum of unauthorised consumption, the period of such unauthorised consumption shall be determined on the basis of evidence adduced by the consumer. On failure of the consumer to prove the aforesaid satisfactorily, the Engineer concerned shall levy over-drawal charges calculated for a period of one year prior to the date of detection provided that if the initial date of supply is less than one year from the date of detection, the over-drawal charge shall be calculated accordingly for the reduced period only. Sub-clause (iii) of Regulation 36-A reads: The over-drawal charge shall be calculated at double the rate of tariff prescribed. 12. Sub-clause (iii) of Regulation 36-A reads: The over-drawal charge shall be calculated at double the rate of tariff prescribed. 12. In the present case, admittedly on account of Board's laches, the meter was not verified as per the Regulation until for the first time on 2.8.1989. After the detection of the unauthorised consumption, the Board submitted revised bill as under Anexure 8 and this seems to be under the Regulation 36-A by calculating the amount on the basis of consumption of Electric energy @ 8.112 K.W. and that too at the double the rate for a period of one year preceding the date of detection. To this, the Petitioner raised a dispute under Annexure 9 for the amount. The Board did not afford an opportunity to the Petitioner to adduce evidence as to period of such unauthorised consumption, This was in utter violation of the provisions under Regulation 36-A and therefore, we think it proper that, the Board shall not have any right to saddle the Petitioner with an enhanced rate calculated on the basis of the connected load of 8.112 K.W. for a period of one year preceding the date of detection. Therefore, Annexure 8 has to be quashed and amount recalculated on the basis as calculated under Annexure 5. In other words, the Petitioner shall not be liable to pay the enhanced amount for the preceding one year as calculated by the Board, and this will be for the period from January, 1984 till 2.8.1989 at the minimum rate of 51 units and not 576 units. 13. The question remains whether, the Petitioner should also get any remission so far as the Bill Annexure 10 is concerned. This Bill is for a total amount of Rs. 30, 108.17 paise and includes the amount for the period 8/89 to 3/90 and amount for the period is found to be Rs. 5818.94 and ofcourse, the arrear from the beginning under Annexures 5 and 8. After receiving the bill, the Petitioner did not raise any disputed that he did not utilise the energy at the enhanced rates of 8.112 K.W. Rather, in his letter Annexure 14, he merely requested the opp. party No. 2 to allow 14 equal installment to pay the amount. After receiving the bill, the Petitioner did not raise any disputed that he did not utilise the energy at the enhanced rates of 8.112 K.W. Rather, in his letter Annexure 14, he merely requested the opp. party No. 2 to allow 14 equal installment to pay the amount. When the Petitioner did not raise the dispute (unlike the dispute raised in respect of Annexure 8), we are not inclined to set aside the demand for payment of Rs. 5818.94 paise from 2.8.1989 upto 18.5.1990 when the line was disconnected. Since we have set aside the Annexure 8, the arrear amount shown in Annexure 10 has to be recalculated and bill submitted after adjusting an amount of Rs. 8054.00 already paid by the Petitioner. 14. The last point of Mr. Mohanty is with regard to the arbitrary and mala fide action of disconnection of the line on 18.5.1990. In this regard, no doubt, Mr. Mohanty has vehemently criticised the action of the Board in not giving the statutory notice of minimum 7 days before disconnecting the line. We may point out that after receiving the bill under Annexure 10 the Petitioner did not pay the amount nor he made any representation not to disconnect the line. On the other hand, he sent the letter under Annexure 14 which was only after the disconnection. In his letter, he did not mention that the disconnection was made without any prior notice as required. In para 21 of his writ petition, he has mentioned about the disconnection but has not spelt out a single word as to the absence of this statutory notice. On the other hand in the counter opp. party No. 2 in para 12 averred that prior notice was given before disconnection. On the face of such averment by the opposite party and in the absence of any averment either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner countering the assertion of previous notice. Mr. Mohanty's efforts does not impress us to accept his contention. Hence, the disconnection in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be mala fide and arbitrary. 15. Mr. Mohanty referred to the decisions reported in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Dr. Madan P. Joshi, Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, and Smt. Basantibai Vs. Hence, the disconnection in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be mala fide and arbitrary. 15. Mr. Mohanty referred to the decisions reported in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Dr. Madan P. Joshi, Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, and Smt. Basantibai Vs. M.P. Electricity Board, Indore and Others, ). We have carefully gone through the decisions. In the Rajasthan case (supra) the question was that the disconnection notice which was served on the consumer fell short of 7 days. In the case at hand, we have held that there was a prior notice before disconnection. In the Bombay case (supra), the primary question was as to the calculation of enhanced energy consumed. That was a case where the question was whether the matter had cease to work and thus found to be defective. In the present case, admittedly the meter was replaced which a new meter on 15.11.1989. The Petitioner, after such replacement did not raise any dispute with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the meter so replaced. The decision of our view is not applicable to the present case. In the Madhya Pradesh case (supra), the point for decision was that on the face of dispute as to whether the meter was correct or not, the decision of the Inspector as provided u/s 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act has to be final. In the present case, we have held that no dispute has ever been raised with regard to the bill under Annexure 10 (except the arrear amount). 16. Presently, we have been called upon to solve certain problems which seems to have been arisen during the pendency of the writ petition. At the time of hearing, it was brought to our notice that there was no electric connection to the premises of the Petitioner since 31.10.1991 on account of damage of the service line though it is not alleged to be on account of any act or omission on the part of the opposite parties. It is found from Annexures that Petitioner lodged a complaint for re-connection. It is found from Annexures that Petitioner lodged a complaint for re-connection. From the side of the opposite party, it is alleged that after the replacement of the new meter on 15-11-1989, the Petitioner did not allow the staff of the opposite party to take the meter reading to which allegation the opposite party has denied. It is further found from Annexures A and C that the Junior Engineer and staff of the Board could not take the meter reading as the room was found locked. This is also denied by the opposite party. However, for not taking the meter reading we do not appreciate the action of the Board in as much as they have got a statutory power u/s 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, read with 22 (m) of the Board's Regulation to take appropriate action against the consumer. It seems no such action has been taken. Therefore, the excuse claimed by the Board that the meter reading could not be taken on account of the obstruction caused by the Petitioner cannot be accepted. 17. Mr. Naik, the learned Counsel for the Board with reference to Annexure D, a letter by the Managing Partner of a Firm, namely Omni Pharmacuticals Ltd., submitted that the latter did not allow the staff of the Board to connect the service line claiming that such service line of the Board, should be removed since it was drawn over its premises. This is not the subject matter of the dispute before us. However, as a Court of Justice, this Court should make a sincere endeavour to resolve the dispute between the parties which has generated a smouldering bitterness between the two With regard to this dispute posed before us, we may refer to decision reported in 64 (1987) CLT 739 : (Kailash Chandra Mishra v. Executive Engineer, Jagatsinghpur Electrical Division.) In the case, the service line passed over the thatched house of the complainant and the latter complained of his inconvenience in thatching his house. He requested the authority that the same should be removed. This Court referring the Board's Regulation 4 (e) held that the service line was provided and supply was made upon compliance of all conditions and satisfaction of all pre-conditions as provided under the regulations. He requested the authority that the same should be removed. This Court referring the Board's Regulation 4 (e) held that the service line was provided and supply was made upon compliance of all conditions and satisfaction of all pre-conditions as provided under the regulations. It was observed that unless the consumer should arrange the necessary way-leave, license or sanction, the Board shall not be bound to afford supply until such way-leave or sanction was granted. In the event of way-leave license or sanction being cancelled or withdrawn, the consumer shall at his own cost arrange for any diversion of the service line failing which the supply shall be discontinued and service line remove. But it was held in para 3 of the judgment that once the power was supplied, it might be presumed that the authorities were satisfied about the compliance of Regulation 4 (e). In the present case with us, the service line was there from the year 1984 and at no point of time, this Omni Pharmacuticals Ltd., complained to the Board for removal of the Service Line. Therefore, the Board cannot come forward with a new case that they are unable to fix the service line because of the objections raised by the 3rd party. We refrain from giving any direction on this issue. In case, any contingencies arises touching this problem, the Board as well as the consumer shall take steps as per the provisions under Regulation 4(e) and of course keeping in mind the principles decided in the case of Kailash Chandra Mishra (supra). 18. In the result, we quash Annexures 8 and 10. The amount under both these bills shall be re-calculated on the basis of observation & direction of this Court as per the previous paragraphs. The Petitioners is directed to pay the amount under the bill Annexure 5 which he has not disputed at all. The amount under Annexure 8 shall be re-calculated on the basis of minimum charge for the entire period under the bill and not at the enhanced rate. The Petitioner shall pay Rs. 5818.94 paise for the period 8/89 to 3/90 and the arrear under the bill shall be re- calculated as per the minimum charge calculated under Annexure 5. The Petitioner shall be liable to pay at the enhanced rate from April, 1990 only and not for May, 1990 since the line was disconnected on 18.5.1990. The Petitioner shall pay Rs. 5818.94 paise for the period 8/89 to 3/90 and the arrear under the bill shall be re- calculated as per the minimum charge calculated under Annexure 5. The Petitioner shall be liable to pay at the enhanced rate from April, 1990 only and not for May, 1990 since the line was disconnected on 18.5.1990. The Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 8054/- and this shall be adjusted towards the arrear dues. The Petitioner shall inform the Board within 7 days from the date of this order whether he will like to have a contracted load of 3 K.W. or 8 K.W. If he desires to have a contracted load of 8 K.W., he shall execute an agreement with the Board to that effect. The opposite party-Board after receiving such intimation from the Petitioner, within, 7 days shall restore the connection with a new service wire and the Petitioner shall in case of replacement of new service wire shall bear the cost of the same as per rules. The Petitioner in his turn shall fulfil, any preconditions as per rules before restoration of the line. After the Board has connected the service line the bills as indicated above shall be raised within one month and the Petitioner shall be called up to pay the amount under the bill and the opposite party No. 2 if so moved may direct payment by suitable installments by the Petitioner. With this direction, the writ petition is allowed but parties to bear own cost. A.K. Padhi, J. 19. I agree. Final Result : Allowed