Judgment 1. The issue in this case relates to raising of bills to an electrical connection where the meter installed has become defective. And the controversy springs from the provisions of a notification issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board which remained in existence for a brief period. The notification in question was issued on 31.5.2001. It under-went an amendment on 28.7.2001. It was published in the gazette on 5.11.2001 and it was finally replaced by the Boards tariff coming into force with effect from 1.11.2002. 2. The meters becoming defective or being rendered defective by the consumers seems to be a chronic problem for the Board. And it is for that reason that special provisions are to be made in the Boards tariff for raising bills to connections with defective meters. In the 1993 tariff the provisions for raising bill to electrical connections with defective meters were contained in clause 16.8. The clause, in substance, provided for raising bill on the basis of "average consumption of previous 3 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 monthly guarantee whichever is the highest." 3. It, however, seems that the Board took the view that meters were deliberately made defective by the consumers for taking advantage of average billing provided under the 1993 tariff and, thus, they were able to derive undue advantage and put the Board to considerable financial loss. It was presumably under this belief that notification No. COM/TAR/904/2000-271 was issued on 31.5.2001 which was later slightly modified by another notification, dated 28.7.2001. By the two notifications, a basic change was made in that the responsibility to provide a good meter to replace the earlier defective one was shifted to the consumer. The obligation cast upon the consumer was made further stringent by adding the condition that on the meter becoming defective, for the first three months the consumption would be assessed and billed @ 100 units/HP for LTIS-I and 200 units/HP for LTIS-II and LTIS-III of the sanctioned load or part thereof. The obligation cast upon the consumer was made further stringent by adding the condition that on the meter becoming defective, for the first three months the consumption would be assessed and billed @ 100 units/HP for LTIS-I and 200 units/HP for LTIS-II and LTIS-III of the sanctioned load or part thereof. The notification further provided that in the event of non-replacement of the defective meter by the consumer after the expiry of three months from the date the meter became defective, the assessment and billing of consumption would be done @ 300 units/ HP for LTIS-I and 400 units/HP of the sanctioned load or part thereof for LTIS-II and LTIS-III category. The number of units per H.P. fixed for LTIS-II and LTIS-III categories was later reduced to 150 for the first three months and 300 after expiry of the period of three months vide notification, dated 28.7.2001. 4. Perhaps, it was later felt that the legal validity of the arrangement envisaged under the two notifications, was not entirely free from doubt and presumably for that reason the arrangement was given up and for billing of connections with defective meters a slightly different provision was made in the 2002 tariff. 5. In this case, however, we are concerned with the bills raised on the basis of the provisions of the notifications, dated 31.5.2001 and 28.7.2001. 6. Though the legal validity of the tariff dated 31.5.2001 has been expressely challenged in the writ petition and though Mr. S.D.Sanjay, counsel for the petitioner also made submissions on the legality of the notification, I find that this case can be disposed of even without going into the question of validity of the notification. 7. The facts of the case are brief and simple and can be stated thus. The petitionar is a consumer under low tension industrial service II category. It took the electricity line with 30 HP. connected load on 8.2.1999. On 29.6.1999 the statutory agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Board and in November, 1999 the line was energised. The petitioners unit commenced production from 21.2.2000. 8. It was given the first bill on 31.12.1999. The bill was for Rs. 5,635.44 without showing any meter reading or units consumed. The petitioner made the payment without demur. It then received the second bill, dated 30.1.2000. The petitioners unit commenced production from 21.2.2000. 8. It was given the first bill on 31.12.1999. The bill was for Rs. 5,635.44 without showing any meter reading or units consumed. The petitioner made the payment without demur. It then received the second bill, dated 30.1.2000. In this bill both the past and the present readings were shown as 123 units and the bill was made on the basis of the minimum monthly guarantee. The petitioner assumed that the meter was not functioning. It is, however, stated on its behalf that at that stage the petitioner did not realise that the meter was defective from its inception, but it was thought that the meter was "locked" and the officials of the Board had omitted to unlock it and once it was unlocked, it would record the units consumed properly. On the same day representation was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Junior Engineer of the Board stating that the meter was not in operation and it seems to be under lock position. On the same day the petitioner filed another representation before the Accounts Officer of the Board stating that the meter was locked and necessary action was required to be taken. 9. The petitioner might have been under an erroneous belief that the meter was not functioning as it was not unlocked by the officials of the Board. But, the Boards officials clearly knew from the very beginning that the meter was defective. Yet no step seems to have been taken by the Board. It may be noted here that all this happened in December, 1999 and January, 2000 and, therefore, the petitioner was given the earlier bills under the provisions of 1993 tariff. 10. While the meter remained defective, the notification, dated 31.5.2001 was issued and the officials of the Board gave the next bill to the petitioner on the basis of the provisions of that notification; the bill for August, 2001 was for Rs. 40,469/- with arrears of Rs. 18,735.23. In this bill the consumption figure of units was arrived at by multiplying the connected load of 30 HP. of the petitioners establishment by 150 as per the notifications, dated 31.5.2001/28.7.2001. 40,469/- with arrears of Rs. 18,735.23. In this bill the consumption figure of units was arrived at by multiplying the connected load of 30 HP. of the petitioners establishment by 150 as per the notifications, dated 31.5.2001/28.7.2001. The bill completely unnerved the petitioner who met the authorities and then it was explained to him that he was required to supply a good, standard meter for replacement of the earlier defective one installed at his premises. As the petitioner could not risk the disconnection of his line, he paid the amount of the bill under protest and also supplied a good, standard meter to the authorities on 29.9.2001. In the mean while the three months period expired and he was given bills, dated 16.10.2001 and 14.11.2001, each for 9000 units by multiplying his connected load of 30 HP by 300. Finally on 31.10.2001 the new meter was installed after it satisfied the test by the Boards officials and since then the petitioner is being billed on the basis of the readings in that meter. 11. The mere narration of the facts makes it clear, without the need of any arguments that the Board has not acted in this case fairly and reasonably. As noted above, the meter was defective from its very inception and this fact was fully in the knowledge of the officials of the Board. Yet no steps were taken either to replace it or even to ask the petitioner to supply another meter. That was the position when the notification was issued on 31.5.2001. At that time it was not even published in the official gazette that might give rise to the legal presumption of its knowledge to all and sundry. To all one knows it might have been locked in the Boards closets and yet it was invoked to drastically penalise the petitioner for its failure to supply a good meter. The Board is an statutory body and its actions must be informed by fairness and reasonableness. In this case, it cannot be said that the Board has acted fairly and reasonably to the petitioner. Hence, even without going into the question of validity of the notification, dated 31.5.2001, it must be held that all the bills raised on that basis were invalid, illegal and liable to be set aside. 12. In this case, it cannot be said that the Board has acted fairly and reasonably to the petitioner. Hence, even without going into the question of validity of the notification, dated 31.5.2001, it must be held that all the bills raised on that basis were invalid, illegal and liable to be set aside. 12. All the bills issued by the Board, therefore, between the period 1.6.2001 to 31.10.2001 are set aside and the concerned authorities in the Board are directed to give fresh bills to the petitioner. The fresh bills will be drawn either on the basis of average for the corresponding months in the succeeding year or on the basis of M.M.G. charges as being in force at the relevant time. Any excess payments made by the petitioner for that period shall be adjusted against its future bills. 13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.