A. K. CHAKRAVARTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application is directed for cancellation of an electric bill raised by the C. E. S. C. Ltd. , for the month of March, 1990 and for necessary direction to submit correct bill after testing meter. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that she is the owner of a factory with six workers working therein She was sanctioned power load of 52. 3 H. P. and that she was consuming the power daily for four hours. She alleged that the reading of the meter in January 1989 was 72959 and in November, 1989 reading in the said meter was 76843. Thus the amount of electricity consumed from January 1989 till November, 1989 in her meter was 3884 units, the value of which would have been Rs. 4272. 40 P. A complaint was made by the petitioner on the allegation of the meter was running defectively. Thereafter on March 1990, the respondents recorded the meter reading as 117028 without any basis and recorded the consumption as 40,185 units which includes the bill from October, 198 9/01/1990. The petitioner's husband visited the office of the CESC Ltd. , and he informed that the petitioner is ready to give the charges for testing of the electric meter. She received the reply that the meter was running correctly. According to the petitioner the value of the total consumption of the electricity cannot be more than Rs. 9544. 80 up to the month of March, 1990 in her factory. The respondents CESC Ltd. , raised the bill for the month of March, 1990 showing the units consumed as 40185 and demanded Rs. 67,737. 46. The bill has been challenged on the ground as without any basis whatsoever. The petitioner also alleged that she was apprehensive that her electric connection may be disconnected at any point of time. The petitioner accordingly filed the writ application for issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus for direction upon the respondents not to disconnect her electric connection and to withdraw and cancel the inflated bill of March, 1990 and raise the fresh bill for the same. After the filing of the aforesaid application number of interim orders were obtained. The petitioner accordingly filed the writ application for issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus for direction upon the respondents not to disconnect her electric connection and to withdraw and cancel the inflated bill of March, 1990 and raise the fresh bill for the same. After the filing of the aforesaid application number of interim orders were obtained. ( 3 ) THE respondents CESC Ltd. , though has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition in this matter, still then their case, as it appears from the application for variation / modification/ vacating of the interim order, is that the premises of the writ petitioner at 98, Girish Ghosh Road, Howrah is equipped with motor meter (082347-6 Dial) and a light and fan Meter No. 0423307. The Meter Reader/ Inspector of the CESC Ltd. could not read the meters due to non-availability of the access to the said meter board since October, 1989. In order to avoid accummulation of charges, the writ petitioner was charged provisionally at 350 units in respect of consumption in her light and fan meter and 400 units against the motor meter. The meters were kept under observation and accordingly the bills in the premises of the petitioner did not include power consumption for the period of November, 198 9/02/1990. While the said meters were working properly on observation, the bill for the month of March, 1990 account bill was raised covering consumption for five months against the motor meter. The aforesaid vacating petition having not been disposed of the order passed in the writ application shall also be applicable in respect of the said petition. ( 4 ) MR. Ashutosh Law, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the bill for March, 1990 showing the consumption of units and the consequent raising of the bill amounting to Rs. 67,737. 40 is absolutely without any basis as it is not comparable with the amount of consumption made by the petitioner at the period immediately preceding the bill. He submitted that in her factory the petitioner was consuming power load of 25 H. P. This cannot be a fact in view of the clear averment in the writ petition that the sanctioned power load was 52. 3 H. P. (R. C. D.) form. On the basis he made complicated calculation, in this matter since 1 H. P. = 746 Watt claimed 52. 3 H. P. (R. C. D.) form. On the basis he made complicated calculation, in this matter since 1 H. P. = 746 Watt claimed 52. 3 H. P. shall be equal to 3901. 58 i. e. , more or less 39 K. W. Since 1 K. W. of power is consumed the consumption of 1000 Watts for 1 hour then according to the line capacity of the petitioner she could not consume more than 39 units of electricity per hour. It was accordingly submitted that daily consumption per day cannot exceed 39 x 12 units (if the factory is believed to work in 3 shifts) i. e. 468 units since the factory remains open for 25 days, the multiplier of 25 should be considered to be correct consumption. It thus gives the consumption of 12700 units per month. Since at the relevant time the charge per unit was Rs. 1. 10, Mr. Ashutosh Law submitted and the maximum chargeable amount for the month of March accordingly, can, under no circumstances, exceed Rs. 13977. It was also submitted by Mr. Law that the petitioner raised objection about the correctness of the meter but no action was taken on behalf of the respondents CESC Ltd. , for getting the meter immediate tested or replacement of the same. Mr. Ashutosh Law, accordingly submitted that the bill for March, 1992 has been raised without any basis whatsoever. Accordingly respondents CESC Ltd. , should be directed to raise fresh bills after changing the meter and not to disconnect the electricity in her factory. ( 5 ) MR. Suchit Kumar Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the amount raised in the bill of March, 1990 does not reflect the consumption consumed immediately before that date but that it represents the outstanding amount payable by the petitioner for consumption of electricity against the said meters. For this purpose he referred to 'annexure-C (I)' at page 13 of the writ petition from where it will appear that the Commercial Executive informed the petitioner by letter dated 12/04/1990 that "in this connection we would like to draw your attention to our recent inspection at site on 3-3-1990 when the meter was found to be functioning properly and no irregularities were observed either with the performance of the meter or the readings of the same. Hence, being satisfied with the accuracy of the meter we have issued our March, 1990 a/c bill on the basis of the actual registrations of Meter No. 0812347 (Motor) covering a period of 5 months (five) along with the actual registration of Meter No. 0423307 (light and fan) for your one month's light and fan consumption. In this connection, reference may be made to Annexure 'a' at page 10 of the writ petition from which it will appear that the meter reading in the month of January, 1989 was 0729 8/10/1989 was and the next reading of March, 1990 was 117028. The difference of recorded consumption in the bills from January, 198 9/10/1989 and from October, 198 9/03/1990 does not necessarily mean that the impugned bill was inflated specially when the bill was raised on the basis of actual registration in the meters. It was further submitted that had the petitioner really felt that the meter was running defectively she could have taken steps for getting the meters tested and particularly when she was informed that the meter was in perfect condition and there was no defect in the same. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides I find that there is sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Suchit Banerjee, learned counsel for the respondents, in the matter electric bills are to raised in terms of actual meter reading and such reading shall be presumed to be correct unless the bill of meter is found to be erroneous or defective, as the case may be, by the statutory authority under the I. E. Act, 1910 who is the Electrical Inspector. Correctness of the billing can be challenged under S. 24 (1) by the affected party and either of the parties can raise dispute about correctness of the meter under S. 26 (6) before the Electrical Inspector. Now of the above two steps having been taken by the petitioner the Court is not entitled to compare the correctness of the bill by way of comparison with earlier bills or make any calculation on the basis of horse power. Mere complaint of the petitioner to the CESC Ltd. that the meter is defective shall not absolve the petitioner of her liability to pay in terms of the bill. Mere complaint of the petitioner to the CESC Ltd. that the meter is defective shall not absolve the petitioner of her liability to pay in terms of the bill. Petitioner having failed to take appropriate steps as provided in the Statute she shall be bound to pay the bill in terms of meter reading. Under the provisions of S. 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which lays down that unless it is found by the Electrical Inspector on testing that the meter is defective, then the registration in the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, shall be the conclusive proof of the correctness of the unit consumed in the said meter. It is an established law that fraud must. . . . . . . . be specifically alleged and proved. In the instant case there is neither any allegation nor any materials to prove the same. Registration of consumption at a higher rate in the meter does not prove fraud because there may be higher consumption for the period in respect of which bill for higher amount was raised. I am also to mention the provisions of S. 24 (1) which empowers the CESC Ltd. to disconnect electric supply unless the bill is paid. ( 6 ) SO upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the position of law, it is clear that the bill raised for March, 1990 having been drawn on the basis of the meter reading which has not been proved have been running defectively that no objection in respect of the said bill can be entertained. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is to deposit the entire amount of the outstanding bill of March, 1990 deducting the amount already deposited towards the said amount by the order of the Court within 15 days from the date of this order. Upon such deposit being made the CESC Ltd. shall not disconnect electric connection in the factory of the petitioner. In the event of such disconnection having already been made the respondents CESC Ltd. shall connect the electric line within 48 hours of the deposit of the aforesaid amount. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply Electric Inspector under S. 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for getting the meter tested. In the event of such disconnection having already been made the respondents CESC Ltd. shall connect the electric line within 48 hours of the deposit of the aforesaid amount. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply Electric Inspector under S. 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for getting the meter tested. In the event of such meter being found defective the respondents CESC Ltd. shall replace the said meter by installation of a new meter. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ( 9 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 10 ) AS prayed for, let xerox copies of this order be handed over to the learned advocate for the parties on usual undertakings. Order accordingly.