ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application was preferred by the petitioner against the bills for the month of September, 1999 onwards. 2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the meter was not in running condition since September, 1999 and the units consumed as shown in the impugned bills, are based on no evidence. 3. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that they have detected that the meter went out of order some time in August, 1999 and so steps was taken for counting the average of three months bill which, according to the respondents, bills of the month of May 99, June 99 and July 99. However, this part of the statement is being objected by the counsel for the petitioner, as according to her, it should be counted for the months of June 99, July 99 and August 99. 4. From the bills enclosed by the petitioner, as Anhexure-2, not disputed by the respondents, it will be evident that the meter was in running condition upto August 99. Annexure 2 contains the bills for the months of June 99. July 99 and August 99, being based on proper meter reading and the average assessment to be made for the month of September, 1999 onwards, the respondents are directed to prepare and hand over the average bill for the month September 99 onwards, in accordance with law, taking into account, the bills for the month of June 99, July 99 and August 99, as contained in Annexure 3. 5. The respondents will adhere to their statement made in the counter affidavit that till revised bill is issued and time allowed to petitioner for payment, they will not disconnect the electrical connection. 6. However, if there required to be any adjudicated the authorities will do the same. 7. The parties may take steps for replacement of meter, in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 8. Petition disposed of.