JUDGMENT PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the energy bill for the month of August, 2009 to the extent it relates to the levy of short charges for the period, February, 2009 to May, 2009. 2. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and had set up a factory at Chandil for the manufacturing of iron and steel and allied products. The petitioner's company had made an application to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board for giving electrical connection for a contract demand of 1500 KVA. It appears that the said connection was given to the petitioner in June, 2006. Accordingly, the respondents started supplying the electricity. It further appears that petitioner again applied for an extra load of 2500 KVA, which was sanctioned and an agreement to that effect was executed in the month of January, 2009. Thus, after the new agreement, the contract demand of the petitioner's company enhanced from 1500 KVA to 4000 KVA. It further appears that the connection for 4000 KVA energized on 6.2.2009. It is then stated that the meter installed in the factory premises of petitioner had burnt in the month of February, 2009. It is stated that thereafter the Board served bill on the petitioner's company on the basis of monthly minimum charges from the month of February, 2009 to the month of May, 2009. It is stated that a new meter installed in the premises of petitioner's company in the month of June, 2009. Thereafter the petitioner's company served energy bill on the basis of actual consumption shown in the new meter, which the petitioner's company paid. It is further stated that petitioner's company had received the bill for the month of August 2009 in which apart from the energy charges for the month of August, 2009, Rs. 3895104/- had been levied under the heading for short charges from February, 2009 to May, 2009. Thereafter, petitioner filed a representation vide Annexure-5. It appears that the respondents made a fresh calculation and reduced the short charges for the month of February, 2009 to May, 2009 from Rs. 3895104/- to Rs. 2160000/- and served a fresh bill. Thereafter, again petitioner field a representation and stated therein that the energy bill which was raised for the period meter remain defective is in contravention of Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code and Regulation, 2005. 3895104/- to Rs. 2160000/- and served a fresh bill. Thereafter, again petitioner field a representation and stated therein that the energy bill which was raised for the period meter remain defective is in contravention of Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code and Regulation, 2005. In the said representation, petitioner further stated that the Rolling Mill of the petitioner become functional in the month of June, 2009, therefore, it is not possible for the petitioner to consume more energy than what it had consumed in the month of June, 2009 i.e. 134880 Units. It is submitted that there is no rule to raise energy bill for the period meter defective on the basis of succeeding three months energy average after installation of new meter. It is submitted that as per Clause 11.3 of the Electricity Supply Code and Regulation, 2005, if the meter become defective or burnt, the consumer shall be billed on the basis of average consumption of the last 12 months immediately preceding the month in which meter was last read. Accordingly, it is submitted that the bill submitted by the Board for the month of August, 2009 so far it relates to the month of February, 2009 to May, 2009 is illegal. 3. It appears that during the pendency of this writ application, the second representation of the petitioner disposed of vide memo no. 1323 dated 26.11.2009 and in that order, amount of the bill with respect to the aforesaid three moths i.e. February, 2009 to May, 2009 again reduced and petitioner was ordered to pay Rs. 18,91,706/-. 4. Sri. N.K. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the meter of petitioner burnt in the month of February, 2009 and a new meter installed in the month of June, 2009. Thus, as per second proviso to Clause 11.3 of Electricity Supply Code & Regulation, 2005, the Board can raise bill on the basis of average energy consumption of last 12 months, immediately preceding the month in which the meter was burnt. It is submitted that there is no rule which gives power to the Board and/or respondents to raise bill on the basis of average consumption of actual consumption recorded in the next three consecutive months after installation of new meter. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order as contained in memo no. It is submitted that there is no rule which gives power to the Board and/or respondents to raise bill on the basis of average consumption of actual consumption recorded in the next three consecutive months after installation of new meter. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order as contained in memo no. 1323 dated 26.11.2009 as well as the bill for the month of August, 2009 to the extent of short charges for the period from February, 2009 to May, 2009 is illegal, therefore, liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that it is an admitted position that prior to February, 2009, petitioner was consuming electricity on the basis of maximum contract demand of 1500 KVA. The contract demand of petitioner's company was enhanced to the extent of 4000 KVA and energized from the month of February, 2009. He further submits that it is admitted by the petitioner that the meter burnt in the month of February, 2009. Thus prior to February 2009 there is no reading in the meter on the basis of enhance contract demand of 4000 KVA. So there is no way to ascertain the average consumption of contract demand of 4000 KVA from previous recorded consumption, because prior to February, 2009, the contract demand load of the petitioner's company was only 1500 KVA. He submits that, in the aforesaid circumstances, it is just and fair for the Board to raise bill on the basis of average consumption of the petitioner's company for next three consecutive months i.e. June, 2009 to August, 2009. It is submitted that in a similar type of case, Hon'ble Patna High Court has held in a case reported in 2003(4) PLJR 544 that if the meter went defective from its inspection then in that case it is fare and just for the Board to draw bill on the basis of average for the corresponding month in succeeding years. Sri Singh further submits that memo no. 1323 dated 26.11.2009 shows that the said order has been passed after hearing the argument of petitioner's company. Thus, there is no illegality in the aforesaid order, hence, no interference require by this Hon'ble Court. 6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. Sri Singh further submits that memo no. 1323 dated 26.11.2009 shows that the said order has been passed after hearing the argument of petitioner's company. Thus, there is no illegality in the aforesaid order, hence, no interference require by this Hon'ble Court. 6. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted position that previously the contract demand of petitioner was only 1500 KVA which was enhanced from 1500 KVA to 4000 KVA, as desired by the petitioner, in the month of February, 2009. It is also admitted that the meter burnt in the month of February, 2009 itself. It is also an admitted position that the burnt meter had been replaced on 29.5.2009, thereafter it was running properly. It is also an admitted position that after the enhancement of contract demand, no actual reading recorded in the meter. Under the said circumstances, the question of raising bill on the basis of average consumption of last 12 months, immediately preceding February, 2009 does not arise. It appears from Annexure-K to the reply filed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board that after hearing the argument of the petitioner's company, the Board has decided to raise bill on the basis of per day average consumption of consecutive three moths recorded from the month of June, 2009 to August, 2009, when the meter was properly running. Accordingly, the Board came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay altogether Rs. 58,85,881/- for the aforesaid period. It appears that petitioner had already paid Rs. 39,94,175/- therefore, he is directed to pay difference amount i.e. Rs. 18,91,706/- more for the said period. 7. In my view, since the meter has become defective form the month of February, 2009 when the demand load of petitioner enhanced from 1500 KVA to 4000 KVA, therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in 2003(4) PLJR 544 , it is the duty of the Board to raise bill on just, fair and reasonable manner. In the instant case, in my view, the Board has taken a just decision for raising the bill on the average per day consumption of next consecutive three months i.e. from the month of June, 2009 to August, 2009, when the meter was properly running. In the instant case, in my view, the Board has taken a just decision for raising the bill on the average per day consumption of next consecutive three months i.e. from the month of June, 2009 to August, 2009, when the meter was properly running. I find no arbitrariness or malice in the aforesaid decision of the Board, which was taken after giving due hearing to the petitioner's company. 8. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 9. It appears that vide order dated 01.12.2009, petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- and remaining payment has been stayed. Under the said circumstance, I direct the petitioner to pay the rest of the amount within one month from today, otherwise, it is open for the respondents to take all coercive steps including realization of D.P.S. and disconnection of electric connection of the petitioner company.