Judgment Aftab Alam and D.S.Dhaliwal JJ. 1. The petitioners in these 14 writ petitions, comprising this batch of cases, are electrical consumers having either a low tension or a high tension connection. They assail the action of the Board in raising bills on the basis of certain fixed percentage of the load factor of the consumer. 2. It may be noted that with the professed object of checking theft of electrical energy, the Bihar State Electricity Board devised a scheme of raising bills on the basis of load factor (@ 30% of the load factor in case of low tension connections and @ 45% of the load factor in case of high tension connections). The scheme was contained in the notification, dated 16.2.1987 issued by the Board making it effective retrospectively from 12.6 1982 3. The aforesaid notification and the bills raised on that basis came under challenge before this Court in CWJC No. 1513 of 1988, Parmeshwar Kumar Agrawal v. Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna Ors. A bench of this Court at Ranchi allowed the writ petition and held that even during the period the meter remained defective, the consumer could be billed only in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the provisions of Sec. 26(6) of the Electricity Act and not on the basis of the factor as envisaged in the impugned notification. The judgment of this Court in the case of Parmeshwar Kumar Agrawal is reported in A.l.R. 1989 Patna 197 : 1989 PLJR 40 4. The Board preferred Civil Appeal No. 1944/1989 against this judgment The Supreme Court while granting leave to appeal also stayed the operation of the judgment and order passed by this Court. It was at that time that these writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the bills given to the petitioners, for different months, and raised on the basis of 30% or 45%, as the case may be, of the load factor. In view of the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, these writ petitions after being admitted were directed to await the final decision of the Apex Court. The Supreme Court finally dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1944/1989, which was heard along with several other analogous cases by judgment and order dated 27.5.1996, reported in A.l.R. 1996 S.C. 2214. While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed in paras 20 and 21, as follows: 20. The Supreme Court finally dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1944/1989, which was heard along with several other analogous cases by judgment and order dated 27.5.1996, reported in A.l.R. 1996 S.C. 2214. While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed in paras 20 and 21, as follows: 20. Though in the case at hand, the motivating factor for the issuance of the notification is similar to the one as was in the aforementioned case, we dont think if Clauses 14 can be pressed into service to sustain the notification, as present is not a case of alteration of charges mentioned in the clause; it really seeks to introduce an unknown mode of charging for energy, which is not visualised by the agreement entered into between the parties. This apart, a harmonious reading of Clauses 3(c), 6 and 14 would not permit us to say that Clauses 14 has overridden what has been provided in Clauses 3(c) and 6. 21. This is not all, as it has been held by this Court in M.P Electricity Board V/s. Basanti Bai -- , that Sec. 26(6) of the 1910 Act does not authorise the Electricity Boards to issue any supplementary bills in respect of the energy consumed during the pendency of the dispute with an electrical Inspector, We have mentioned about this decision because pursuant to the notification, the Board did submit supplementary bills to the respondent consumers. It seems to us that this action was really in conflict with the statutory provision contained in Sec. 26(6) of 1910 Act. as interpreted by this Court in Basantibais case 5. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court concludes the controversy on this issue and Mr. Mihir Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the Board stated that in view of the Supreme Court judgment, the Board no longer proposes to raise bills on the basis of load factor or to make any attempt to realise the bills earlier raised on that basis. 6. All the impugned bills in these writ petitions raised on the basis of load factor (@ 30% or 45% as the ease may be) are accordingly quashed. 7. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. However, without any order as to costs.