( 1 ) THE petitioners are questioning the notice for outstanding dues dated october 10th, 2001 issued by the Senor Station Superintendent, Digha Gr. Electric Supply of the West Bengal State Electricity Board (since renamed as West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ). The notice was issued under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The first petitioner was called upon to pay Rs. 3,15,448. 52 on account of outstanding dues for the period from March, 1977 to March, 1986 regarding service connection No. 185/c and for the period from March, 1984 to March, 1986 regarding service connection No. 185a/c. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that no reasons were given for demanding the dues for the periods mentioned in the notice, when it will appear from the bills annexed to the writ petitioner that bills raised by the board for the periods regarding both the service connections were duly paid by the first petitioner. On the strength of Mohinder Singh Gill v. The chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 he submits that the case of committing mistakes during the period in question sought to be made out by the board in its opposition cannot be taken into consideration at all. His further submission is that the notice was issued without giving the petitioners any opportunity of presenting their case. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the board riled on M/s. Bharat Barrel and Drum manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Anr. , AIR 1978 Bom 369 and submits that since by mistake bills for the actual payable amounts had not been raised for the periods in question, the board was entitled to issue the notice, once it detected its mistake. His submission is that during the periods the petitioners were liable to pay more than the amounts for which bills were raised. As to the question of opportunity of presenting case, his submission is that a similar notice had been issued by the authority of the board in April, 1993, and that questioning that notice in 1994 the petitioners filed a suit that was dismissed for default on December 15th, 1999. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned notice was issued by the authority without giving the petitioners any opportunity of presenting their case. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing Counsel for the parties, I find that the impugned notice was issued by the authority without giving the petitioners any opportunity of presenting their case. Counsel for the petitioners, in my view, has rightly said that the authority should not have issued the notice under section 24, when bills duly raised for the periods in question had admittedly been paid by the petitioners. I do not think dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioners can in any way affect their right to maintain the present writ petition. Admittedly the suit was dismissed for default. The writ petition was filed after the notice dated October 10th, 2001 was issued. That notice was not, and rather could not be, the subject of the suit that had been dismissed for default in 1999. I find force in the submission that by filing opposition the board has attempted to supply reasons in support of the notice. In the notice it was stated that bills previously raised had not been paid, this was incorrect. All bills raised in regular course for the months mentioned in the notice were duly paid. ( 5 ) IN the opposition it has been stated that during the periods mentioned in the notice the board raised bills for lesser amounts. It has stated that bills for the correct amounts were not raised by mistake. It sought to justify the notice by saying that since by mistake it has raised bills for lesser amounts, it was entitled to claim payment of the amount mentioned in the notice. Such case of the board stated in the opposition justifies the grievance of the petitioners, as highlighted by their Counsel. I agree with him that if it was a mistake on the part of the board, then without giving opportunity to the petitioners of presenting their case the authority of the board should not have determined the amount unilaterally. ( 6 ) THE board being a state without the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution was under the obligation to act fairly and reasonably. I am unable to say that while issuing the notice it acted fairly and reasonably. It unilaterally determined the dues on the ground that it had detected its certain mistakes. The petitioners never got any opportunity of saying that the story of mistake was not reliable or acceptable. I am unable to say that while issuing the notice it acted fairly and reasonably. It unilaterally determined the dues on the ground that it had detected its certain mistakes. The petitioners never got any opportunity of saying that the story of mistake was not reliable or acceptable. They were entitled to raise the question of limitation. They were entitled to adduce evidence to show that there was no scope for committing any mistake, or that there was actually no mistake. Since no notice had been given to them offering opportunity of presenting their case, they never got an opportunity of establishing before the authority concerned that they were not liable to pay any amount for the periods in question. ( 7 ) FOR these reasons, I quash the notice dated October 10, 2001, allow the writ petition, and order as follows. The respondents will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for determining the dues, if any, payable by the petitioners for the periods mentioned in the notice dated october 10, 2001. If any proceedings are initiated, then after giving the petitioners opportunities of showing cause and presenting their case (including opportunity of adducing evidence), the competent authority shall give the reasoned decision. If it is found that the petitioners are liable to pay any amount, only then notice demanding payment shall be issued. The petitioners will be free to take all points including the point of limitation. The decisions taken, if any, shall be communicated to the petitioners. There shall be no order for costs in the case.