Judgment 1. Two questions arise for consideration in this case. One is whether it is open to the Board to increase the number of units by hundred per cent, for the purpose of billing on monthly average basis, on the failure of a domestic consumer to purchase a meter at his own cost, for replacing the previous defective one? It is undeniable that the responsibility for installing a meter to record the consumption of energy lies with the Board. But during the passeveral years, owing to financial stringencies and mis-management, the Board has not been in a position to maintain a ready supply of meters for replacement of defective ones. A practice has, therefore, developed for the consumer to purchase a meter which is installed after its functioning is tested and approved by the officials of the Board. In such cases the Board does not charge the meter rent. In this case the petitioner did not purchase a meter at his own cost, even though advised by the Board. As a consequence, the concerned officials doubled the number of units for the purpose of average monthly billings. Mr. R.K. Dutta, Addl. S.C. representing the Board was unable to point out any provision in the tariff which might have sanctioned such an action by the Board. 2. The other question is whether it is permissible for the Board to levy delayed payment surcharge (D.P.S.) once it is admittedly found that the earlier bills given over a period of several years were raised incorrectly and then correct bills are made for the period in question. This question is concluded, against the Board, by a decision of this court in M/s. Gaya Roller Flour Mills V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and others, 1995 (2) PLJR 715 and another order, passed by this court recently on 11.7.2002 in CWJC No. 3605 of 2002 (Manwendra Narain Agrawal V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and others). 3. In the light of the above, the facts of this case may be noted which are brief and without controversy. 4. The petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity. The meter installed at his residence became defective in the year, 1986 when it was found that its outer glass cover was broken and it was not functioning properly. 3. In the light of the above, the facts of this case may be noted which are brief and without controversy. 4. The petitioner is a domestic consumer of electricity. The meter installed at his residence became defective in the year, 1986 when it was found that its outer glass cover was broken and it was not functioning properly. Though in the course of arguments in this case, it was suggested that it might be the handi-work of the petitioner himelf, at that time no accusation of this kind was made and no action was taken against the petitioner for the meter becoming defective. 5. As a result of the meter becoming defective the concerned officials started raising bills on a monthly average of 75 units and bills were given to the petitioner at that rate till November, 1990. From December, 1990 to April, 1999, the petitioner was given bills @ 169 units and from May 1999 @ 338 units per month. 6. According to the Board the number of units were doubled from May 1999 because the petitioner did not purchase a new meter despite repeated instructions in that regard. The petitioner had stopped payment of bills and as a result a large amount accumulated as arrears which finally led to disconnection of his line in August, 1999. At that stage the petitioner made certain ad hoc payments for restoration of his line and also made a representation, dated 29.2.2000 before the Executive Engineer for a spot verification of his residence. The officer acceded to the request and a spot verification was in fact made on 1.3.2001. On the basis of the verification report, it was found that the average monthly consumption of the petitioner was not more than 75 units. Thereupon the officials gave the petitioner a revised bili, dated 29.3.2000 for a sum of Rs. 18,530/- (Annexure 5) without furnishing any clue as to how that figure was arrived at. It is this bill along with the subsequent bills (in which the demand made in the bill, dated 29.3.2000 is shown as arrears) which come under challenge in this writ petition. 7. 18,530/- (Annexure 5) without furnishing any clue as to how that figure was arrived at. It is this bill along with the subsequent bills (in which the demand made in the bill, dated 29.3.2000 is shown as arrears) which come under challenge in this writ petition. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board the details of computation are furnished in the form of statement of account, copies of which are at Annexures A and B. From those statements it appears that on the basis of the verification report the petitioner was re-billed on average monthly consumption @ 75 units from December, 1990 to April, 1999 and @ 150 units from May, 1999 till the revision of the account. 8. As to why the number of units were doubled (from 75 to 150 units from May, 1999) the only explanation given was that in May, 1999 the petitioner failed to purchase a new meter, at his own cost, despite repeated directions in that regard by the Board. Though Mr. Dutta was fair to admit that under the tariff there was no such provision, he submitted that the officials of the Board had no other means to prevent the unscrupulous consumers from taking undue advantage from average monthly billings. In my view, in the absence of any legal provision the officials of the Board can hardly be allowed to innovate means for punishing a consumer whom they judge in their sweet will to be unscrupulous. The other question regarding charging delayed payment surcharge also stands concluded by the two earlier orders passed by this court. 9. In these facts and circumstances this court has no option but to hold that even the revision of the petitioners account has not been made properly and in accordance with the rules. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to once again revise the petitioners account and to charge him @ 75 units per month even after April, 1999 and till a meter is installed at his residence. The delayed payment surcharge must also be dropped. 10. The officials will prepare a revised bill in the light of the directions given above and serve it upon the petitioner within one month. The petitioner will be obliged to make payment as per the rules. 11. The delayed payment surcharge must also be dropped. 10. The officials will prepare a revised bill in the light of the directions given above and serve it upon the petitioner within one month. The petitioner will be obliged to make payment as per the rules. 11. At this stage, it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he has already purchased a new meter and the officials may instal it at his residence. The petitioner may hand over the meter in the office of respondent no. 4 who will get it installed at his residence, after the meter is duly tested. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.