JUDGMENT The petitioner No. 1 is an association of flat owners in Premises No.4, Station Road, Liluah. Petitioners No. 2 to 22 are the flat owners. According to the writ petition there were three 440 Volt Meters installed in the premises under Consumer No. 62001003006. The Meter Nos. were 1483182 G03, 1454489 G02 and 1491757 G01. The entire premises were supplied through these meters. Subsequently, 17 petitioners were given separate consumer numbers with separate 220 Volt Meters. These seventeen meters are alleged to have been installed in August, 1995. The petitioner No. 1 now consumes electricity through the said three original meters which stands in the name of the petitioner No.3. 2. According to the petitioners after the installation of the seventeen new meters the consumption of electricity through the three meters went down but as far as meter no. 1454489 G02 was concerned, from September, 1995 the respondents were not correctly billing the petitioner No. 3 according to the meter reading. It is the petitioner's case that on the basis of imaginary readings the respondents had raised bills for the months of September 1995 to January, 1996 and overcharged the petitioner No.1 in respect of 5748 unconsumed units. In respect of the bills for the months subsequent to January 1996 the petitioner No. 1 did not pay but raised a dispute with the Senior Commercial Executive, Howrah Regional Office calling upon him to look into the matter and adjust excess payment made according to the actual meter reading. According to the petitioners CESC did not respond to the said complaint. A second letter was written on 16th April 1996 in which it was stated that the petitioner No.1 was not in a position to deposit any further amount until the excess amount was adjusted against future bills. According to the petitioners this letter also was not replied to by CESC. 3. In the meantime a notice of disconnection has been given by CESC claiming a gross amount of Rs. 14,935/- including all arrears from February, 1996. Payment was required to be made by 20th June 1996 failing which the supply would be disconnected to the three meters. According to the petitioners this letter also was not replied to by CESC. 3. In the meantime a notice of disconnection has been given by CESC claiming a gross amount of Rs. 14,935/- including all arrears from February, 1996. Payment was required to be made by 20th June 1996 failing which the supply would be disconnected to the three meters. Thereafter the petitioners filed this writ application challenging the impugned notice of disconnection as well as the bills for the months of September, 1995 to May, 1996 and have prayed for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from disconnecting the supply of electricity to the said three meters. 4. The only question is whether the petitioners are liable to pay the impugned bills until the dispute raised by the petitioners is settled by the Senior Commercial Executive. If the petitioner is liable then in view of the admitted default in such payment the CESC would be entitled to disconnect the electricity connection to the petitioners under s. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. 5. Clause 16 of the Model Form of Draft Conditions of Supply contained in Appendix-VI to the Indian Electricity Rules 1958 which has been substantially reproduced in clause 21 and 22 of CESC's Condition of Supply provides : "16. Payment of Bills. (a) Bills should be paid at the licensee's local office within fifteen days from the date of their presentation. (b) Any complaints with regard to the accuracy of the bills shall be made in writing to the licensee and the amounts of such bill shall be paid under protest within the said period of fifteen days. The amounts of bills paid under protest will. be regarded as advance to the credit of the consumer's Account until such time as the bills in disputes have been fully settled. (c) If the consumer fails to pay any bill presented to him within the said period of fifteen days the licensee should be at liberty to take action under sub-so (1) of s. 24 of the Act and to cut-off the supply after giving such consumer not less than seven clear days' notice in writing without prejudice to his right to recover the amount of the bill by suit. Where, however, any difference or dispute has been referred under the Act to the Electrical inspector ............ Where, however, any difference or dispute has been referred under the Act to the Electrical inspector ............ before notice aforesaid has been given by the licensee, shall not be at liberty to cut-off the supply for failure to pay the bill except where the licensee has made request in writing to the consumer that the amount in dispute should be deposited with the said Electrical Inspector and the consumer has failed to comply with such request." 6. There is thus a distinction between a billing dispute under 16(b) and one relating to a defective meter under 16(c). I n one the disputed amount must be paid pending settlement of the dispute and in the latter it need not. 7. The dispute in question is a billing dispute covered by Clause 16(a) above. Therefore even if there is a dispute, the petitioners must pay the disputed bills till the dispute is settled. 8. Furthermore according to the terms and conditions of supply which are noted on the reverse of every bill raised by CESC, billing disputes should be raised with the Senior Commercial Executive of the respective Regional office initially. But for long standing disputes the case may be referred to Special Complaint Inquiry Cell at Victoria House, Calcutta 700001 with copies of previous correspondence. However, it is specifically provided that all disputed bills must be paid within the due dates or the rebate is forfeited. If a consumer is entitled to a refund it is credited in a subsequent bill. The petitioner has raised the dispute in terms of this clause with the Senior Commercial Executive. It is incumbent on the petitioner therefore to make payment of the disputed bills subject to adjustment. 9. The decision in M.P.E.B. and Ors. vs. Smt. Basanti Bai, AIR 1988 SC 71 is distinguishable on facts. That case related to a dispute as to the correctness of the meter which is to be determined under s. 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 by the Chief Electrical Inspector [vide Clause 16(c) of the Model Conditions of Supply]. The Court held pending the dispute by the Chief Electrical Inspector no claim could be made in respect of the electricity consumed through the defective meter by the licensee. 10. The Court held pending the dispute by the Chief Electrical Inspector no claim could be made in respect of the electricity consumed through the defective meter by the licensee. 10. For the same reason the case• of M/s. Sri Krishnrajendra Mills vs. The Karnataka Electricity Board, AIR 1991 Kar 345 also cited by the petitioner has no application to this matter. 11. The decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Dumraon Textiles Ltd. vs. Bihar State Electricity Board,. AI R 1995 Pat 43 related to the preparation of bills on the basis of a burnt out meter and did not relate to the consumer's liability to pay pending determination of a billing dispute. 12. The writ application is therefore disposed of by directing the Respondent No. 3 to determine the dispute raised by the petitioners on 23.8.96 within a period of 4 weeks from the date of service of this order after giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and with a reasoned order. If the petitioners pay the outstanding amount claimed by CESC in the impugned notice of disconnection within one week, CESC will not disconnect the electricity connection pursuant to the impugned notice. If default is made in such payment by the petitioners, the impugned notice will be given effect to. If the respondent No.3 finds for the petitioners. the excess amount paid together with interest calculated at the same rate at which CESC claims interest from its consumers on delayed payment shall be adjusted against the bill for the month immediately following the decision of the respondent No.3. This order does not affect the liability of the petitioners in respect of any other claim of CESC apart from that made in the impugned notice. 13. As this order disposes of the writ application it is recorded that the allegations contained therein are not admitted by the respondents. No order as to costs. 14. Learned advocate appearing for petitioner prays for extension of time by three weeks from date. Prayer is allowed. Petitioners directed to make deposit by three weeks from date. Writ application disposed of with directions.