Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER has challenged the bills for the period November, 199 9/02/2000 raised by the respondent-Board on the basis of AMG/mmg as per clause 16. 8 of the 1993 tariff and also the order dated 11-7-2000 passed by Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Giridih rejecting the representation of the petitioner and upholding the correctness of the bills raised under the aforementioned clause of the tariff. ( 2 ) PETITIONER had earlier challenged the aforesaid bills in CWJC No. 206/2000 (R), which was disposed of on 2-3-2000 with a direction to the petitioner to file representation before the Electrical Suptd. Engineer and the later shall consider the representation 4 and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is a Small Scale Industry and is a consumer having contract demand of 500 KVA. It was contended that on 8-11-99 the meter installed in the factory of the petitioner was burnt and the said fact was committed to the Electrical Executive Engineer, Giridih Circle, Giridih. Accordingly, inspection was done in the factory of the petitioner on 19-11-99 and it was found that meter was burnt. However, respondents raised bill for the month of November, 1999 on the basis of monthly minimum guarantee charges. Petitioner raised objection but the Board took the stand that bill was rightly raised as per clause 16. 8 of the tariff. It appears that the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Superintending Engineer holding that during the relevant period contract demand/contract load in the petitioners factory exceeded 500 KVA and became 517 KVA in the month of May, 1999 and therefore petitioner did not come under the purview of the industrial policy as per the Boards letter No. 652 dated 11-10-99. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the meter in the premises of the petitioner was burnt and became defective on 8-11-99, which was confirmed by the inspecting team sent by the Board. The only stand of the Board is that petitioner is not entitled to get benefit under the Industrial Policy 1995 because in the month of May, 1999 the contract demand/contract load of the petitioner exceeded 500 KVA and became 517 KVA. ( 5 ) CLAUSE 16. 8 of 1993 tariff provides the mode of raising bills in case meter became defective or burnt or stopped functioning. Clause 16. ( 5 ) CLAUSE 16. 8 of 1993 tariff provides the mode of raising bills in case meter became defective or burnt or stopped functioning. Clause 16. 8 reads as under :-"in the event of meter being out of order/burnt/stopped or having seized to function for any reason during any month, the consumption for the month/months shall be assessed on an 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 year consumption of the minimum monthly guarantee whichever is highest. Such consumption shall be treated as actual consumption for all practical purpose unless the meter is replaced or rectified. Operational surcharge, power factor surcharge can be levied on consumption so calculated. " ( 6 ) FROM perusal of the aforesaid clause it is clear that in such a case the consumption shall be assessed on average consumption of previous three months from the date of meter being out of order or average consumption for the corresponding three months of the previous year of the minimum monthly guarantee which ever is highest. It has been consistently held by this Court in a series of decisions that in the event meter being out of order for any reason, consumption for that month shall be assessed on the basis of average consumption of previous three months from the date of the meter is being out of order or average consumption for the corresponding three months of previous year consumption, and raising of bill on that basis would be most fair and reasonable. Merely because the contract demand exceeded 500 KVA and it became 517 KVA, the Superintending Engineer was not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the bill should have been raised on the basis of three months consumption. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, Giridih and the impugned order bills are quashed and the respondent-Board is directed to raise fresh bills for the month from November, 199 9/02/2000 on the basis of average consumption and after adjusting the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to order passed by this Court and demand for payment of balance amount shall be in accordance with law. Application allowed. --- *** --- .