ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. MB. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board. 2. A short question falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the respondent-Board was justified in raising bill on the basis of minimum guarantee for the period when meter was either found burnt or defective or ceased to function. 3. Petitioner was having H.T. connection in its factory premises having load of 135 K.V.A. Upto August, 1998 the bill was raised on the basis of actual energy consumption recorded in the meter installed in the factory premises of the petitioner and the petitioner duly paid all the bills raised by the Board. The meter became defective which was confirmed by the officials of the Board after inspection made on 16.9.1998. The respondent-Board further raised bill for the month of September, 1998 but instead of raising bill on the basis of average consumption the Board raised the bill on the basis of monthly minimum guarantee. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the bill for the month of September and October, 1998 was raised on the basis of 20942 units, whereas if the average of previous three months would have been taken, it would work out to 6004 units. 5. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that raising of the bill, for the aforesaid two months when the meter was defective, on the basis of Monthly Minimum Guarantee was not legal and justified. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the bills for the aforesaid two months was raised in accordance with the provisions of Clause 16.8 of the tariff, whereby the consumption for a month can be assessed even on the basis of minimum guarantee. 6. For better appreciation of the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful to refer Clause 16.8 of the Agreement which reads as under : "In the event of meter being out of order i.e. burnt/stopped or having ceased to function for any reason during any month/months, the consumption for that month/months shall be assessed on average consumption/of previous three months from the date of meter being out of order or the average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous years consumption or the minimum guarantee, whichever is the highest. Such consumption will be treated as actual consumption for all practical purposes until the meter is replaced /rectified. Operational surcharge, P/F surcharge and electricity duty shall be levied on consumption so calculated." 7. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in case where meter is found out of order or defective during any month or months, the consumption for that month shall be assessed on average consumption of previous three months from the date of meter being out of order or on the basis of average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous years or the minimum guarantee, whichever is highest. 8. At this stage, I must refer some of the bills which have been annexed as Annexures 1, 3 and 5 to the writ application. Annexure 1 is the bill for the month of August, 1998 when meter was functioning properly. The bill was raised on the basis of consumption of 7783 units. When the meter became defective the Board raised bill by assessing consumption of 20942 units. Similarly, in the bill of October, 1998, the demand was raised taking consumption of 20942 units which is equivalent to Annual Minimum Guarantee units. 9. Time without number, this Court observed that the Electricity Board is a public authority discharging governmental function and it is state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Board is required to act fairly, judicially and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the Board is not entitled to make arbitrary demand of substantial amount of money without affording opportunity of hearing to the consumer. It is true that Clause 16.8 empowers the Board to assess the bill of a particular month when the meter was out of order, either on the basis of average consumption of previous three months or on the basis of average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous years of consumption or the minimum monthly guarantee, whichever is the highest. But while raising the bill the Board must take into consideration the average three months consumption of previous three months and maintain rationality while raising bills. 10. But while raising the bill the Board must take into consideration the average three months consumption of previous three months and maintain rationality while raising bills. 10. In the case of Dumraon textiles Limited v. Bihar State Electricity Board, AIR 1995 Pat 43 , a Division Bench of Patna High Court while considering the similar question has held that while preparing the bill under Clause 16.8 of the tariff the Board must also take into account Clause 16(c) which provides that "such average bills should be raised having due regard to the conditions of working during the month under dispute and during the previous three months". 11. In the case Shyam Steel v. Bihar State Electricity Board, this Court considered similar question in CWJC No. 3182/99R and held that the respondent- Board should normally raise bills on the basis of average three months consumption for the previous three months, which would be most fair and reasonable. Since the impugned bills for the months of September and October, 1998 have been raised in violation of principles of natural justice and equity, the same are liable to be quashed. 12. This writ application is therefore allowed and the impugned bills as contained in Annexures 3 and 5 to the writ application are quashed. The respondent-Board is directed to raise fresh bills for the months of September and October, 1998 on the basis of three months consumption of previous three months. 13. It goes without saying that on receipt of the fresh bills petitioner shall honour the bills by making payment within three weeks thereafter. 14. Application allowed.