Judgment 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Rekhi for the petitioner and Mr. Mohit Sah on behalf of the Bihar State Electricity Board (the Board, hereinafter). 2. Mr. Rekhi strongly assailed the validity and legality of the provision contained in clause 6 of the Bihar State Electricity Boards tariff notification no. COM/ TAR/904/2000-171, dated 31.5.2001 and the provisions bearing the same clause number in the amendment notification no. COM/REV/IND. ASS/76/2000-247, dated 28.7.2001 (copies at Annexures 1 and 1/A) and perhaps he feels slightly disappointed that the court is not inclined to go into the question of legality of the provisions. This is simply because this writ petition is fit to be allowed regardless of the validity or otherwise of the impugned provisions. 3. By notification, dated 31.5.2001 a highly stringent provision (contained in clause 6) was introduced in the Boards tariff about the manner of billing in regard to an electrical connection where the meter became defective. By the later notification, dated 28.7.2001 the number of fixed units per H.P. load was reduced but the responsibility continued to lie with the consumer to provide a good, standard meter for the replacement of the previous defective one and in case of his failure to do so within three months, the billing was to be done at twice the number of units per H.P. load on the expiry of three months from the date the previous meter became defective. The provisions in question have been examined in greater detail in a recent decision of this court, dated 11.8.2003 in CWJC No. 14861 of 2001 (Tirupati Techpack Private Limited V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and others) [ 2003(4) PLJR 544 ]. 4. The notification, dated 31.5.2001 came into effect from 1.6.2001. The meter at the premises of the petitioner who is a L.T.I.S. consumer, having a sanctioned load of 78 H.P., got burnt on 16.6.2001 and it was replaced on 25.8.2001. It was duriag tnis interrugnum that the petitioner was given bills on the basis of fixed number of units (150) per H.P. load. In other words, the monthly consumption of electricity was arrived at by multiplying 150 by 78, that being the sanctioned load of the petitioner. It was duriag tnis interrugnum that the petitioner was given bills on the basis of fixed number of units (150) per H.P. load. In other words, the monthly consumption of electricity was arrived at by multiplying 150 by 78, that being the sanctioned load of the petitioner. The bills in question are at Annexure 1/B and the manner in which billing was made, is stated in para 5 of the Boards counter affidavit as follows: 16.6.2001 to 30.6.2001 5850 units July 2001 11700 units 1.8.2001 to 25.8.2001 9750 units 5. One of the grounds on which Mr. Rekhi questioned the enforceability of the notification, dated 31.5.2001 was that during the relevant time it was not notified in fhe gazette and the gazette notification was made as late as on 5.11.2001. He submitted that in terms of section 79 (j) read with section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 the notification would become an enforceable regulation only on being notified in the gazette and hence, no bills could be raised on the basis of the notifications before 5.11.2001, the date of gazette publication. 6. The Board in its counter affidavit has taken a contrary stand. But as noted above it is not needed to go into that question. 7. The question whether or not the notification was required to be published in the gazette for its enforceability is an issue of legality. On being published in the gazette the notification would undoubtedly become enforceable. Publication in the gazette would also give rise to the legal presumption about its knowledge to everyone and no one would be able to escape its rigours on the plea that he had no knowledge about it. But even assuming that the provisions of the two notifications were legally enforceable without/before their publication in the gazette, as it is contended on behalf of the Board, the question arises can the action of the Board be said to be reasonable, just and fair in taking out a draconian provision one fine day out of its closets and making the consumer pay dearly on its basis without any prior warning or information. There is nothing to indicate that the notifications were given any publicity or were circulated by any other means. There is nothing to indicate that the notifications were given any publicity or were circulated by any other means. Having regard to the highly stringent nature of the provisions, the least that was expected was that the petitioner should have been asked to supply a new meter for replacement of the previous one that got burnt and the petitioner should have been informed regarding his liability in case of failure to do so. 8. Admittedly, no step was taken by the Board either to make a demand for supply of a fresh meter or to intimate the petitioner in regard to the consequences and his liabilities in case of failure to supply the meter. 9. It is no ones case that the meter was burnt by the petitioner by design. 10. That being the position, I am clearly of the view that the action of the Board in raising bills on the basis of the provision of the notification, dated 31.5.2001 was clearly unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust and cannot be sustained. 11. The same view was taken by this court in a recent decision, dated 11.8.2003 in the case of Tirupati Techpack Private Limited (supra). Following the order in the earlier case, this writ petition too is allowed and the bills issued by the Board for the period in question are set aside and the concerned authorities are directed to give fresh bills to the petitioner. The fresh bill will be drawn on the basis of clause 16.8 of the 1993 tariff. Any excess payments made by the petitioner for that period shall be adjusted against its future bills. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.