Judgment :- (1.) The petitioner in this Article 226 petition dated October 4, 2004 is seeking a mandamus commanding the first respondent and its officials to bill him on the basis of actual consumption shown by the new meter installed by the respondents in the premises, without adding any amount payable for any previous disputed period. (2.) It appears that disputes and differences arose between the parties in around January, 2002 when, on inspection, the existing meter was found to be defective. The defective meter was replaced, and then the first respondent alleged that someone tampered with the new meter. Though it registered an FIR, it chose not to initiate any proceedings under the Electricity Act, 2003. On the contrary, it started issuing average bills. The petitioner moved the first Article 226 petition in 2002, the second in 2003, and the third, the present one, in 2004. This Court made an order directing testing of the meter. It is submitted that the person who was directed to test the meter has expressed his inability to test it. (3.) The question is whether the first respondent was entitled to issue the average bills. According to the petitioner, the allegation of unauthorised use of energy is incorrect. Mr. Bose, Counsel for the petitioner, has said that there is no basis to say that someone tampered with the new meter. Mr. Nayek, Counsel for the respondents, submits that instead of initiating proceedings under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the first respondent decided to issue average bills. He is unable to show any provision of law that empowered or entitled the respondents to issue the average bills on the ground that someone had tampered with the new meter. (4.) In my opinion, in the absence of any law empowering or conferring a right on the respondents to raise the average bills, they could not issue the average bills and call upon the petitioner to pay on the basis of such bills. There is no merit in the argument that since the petitioner was disputing the bills, his remedy, if any, was before the grievance redressal officer according to provisions of the regulations concerned. The petitioner could raise a billing dispute, only if the bills were raised according to law. It is evident that in the present case the respondents did not raise the bills according to law. The petitioner could raise a billing dispute, only if the bills were raised according to law. It is evident that in the present case the respondents did not raise the bills according to law. Hence there was no scope for the petitioner to approach the grievance redressal officer with his billing dispute. I am of the view that all the average bills should be quashed. (5.) For these reasons, I allow the petition and order as follows. All the average bills raised by the respondents shall be deemed to be quashed. They will be free to raise bills for the disputed period according to law. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by any bill, then he will be free to approach the grievance redressal officer with his billing dispute. The parties will be free to adduce evidence before the appropriate forum in proof of their respective cases, and, if possible and necessary, they will be free to rely on the report of expert. The respondents will be free to claim outstanding amount, if any, according to law. If the petitioner is entitled to arty refund, then the respondents shall give him the benefit of adjustment. No costs. Certified xerox according to law.