Order Seeking quashing of energy bill for the month of June, 2012 for the domestic electrical connection, and for a direction to the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board to issue revised electricity bills on the basis of last 12 months average consumption after deleting the DPS raised on wrong energy bill, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner who is a retired government employee has been provided a domestic electrical connection in his house. Though, there never had been any dispute in the electrical energy bill by the respondent-Board however, for the month of June, 2012 an energy bill for Rs. 1,95,090/- was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner after receiving the energy bill dated 31.07.2012, lodged a protest on 10.08.2012 pointing out the glaring absurdity in the meter reading. The petitioner made fresh representation on 03.10.2012 specifically asserting that in view of the previous electric bills, the bill raised for energy consumed for the month of June, 2012 is wrong for which he requested for meter testing. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 27.09.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,99,317/-. When the petitioner approached the respondents, he was directed to make a representation undertaking to deposit 50 % of the amount. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted representation on 13.10.2012 however, neither meter was sent for testing nor the energy bill was revised by the respondents and the respondents illegally disconnected the domestic electric connection on 30.11.2012. The petitioner therefore, approached the VUSNF, Ranchi in Case No. 29 of 2012. Pursuant to order passed by the Forum, the electrical connection in the premises of the petitioner was restored and a new meter was installed. In the proceeding of Case No. 29 of 2012, the previous meter was sent for testing to MRT Division, Ranchi which vide report dated 17.08.2013 affirmed that the accuracy of the said meter was found within permissible limit of Board's norms. The petitioner filed objection to the Test Report dated 17.08.2013 before the Forum. The respondents themselves submitted a detailed chart showing consumption between March, 2012 to July, 2012 which reflects that the average monthly consumption of the petitioner was between 600 to 700 units per month. The petitioner filed objection to the Test Report dated 17.08.2013 before the Forum. The respondents themselves submitted a detailed chart showing consumption between March, 2012 to July, 2012 which reflects that the average monthly consumption of the petitioner was between 600 to 700 units per month. Though, the respondents failed to explain the absurdity in meter reading for the month of June, 2012, the learned Forum vide order dated 23.11.2013 dismissed Case No. 29 of 2012 on the ground that the accuracy of the meter has been found within permissible limit. The Forum rejected the plea of load factor formula, on the ground that the same is applicable only in the case of theft of electricity. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Urja Bikas Nigam Limited raising a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 43(6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. It is stated that on 10.09.2012, the premises of the petitioner was inspected during which it was found that the meter was in running condition and the terminal seal was found intact however, the total connected load of the premises was about 9 KW which was 7 KW in excess to the sanctioned load. Since, the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was neither burnt nor tampered, energy bill on the basis of last 12 months average consumption cannot be issued. The petitioner consented for meter testing and the same was done under order of the learned Forum, Ranchi. Since, the accuracy of the meter was found within permissible limit, the learned Forum has rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Mr. D.K. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the specific case of the petitioner that the consumption for the month of June, 2012 as reflected in the electric bill shows abnormal meter reading because of the high voltage supply which caused damage to other electrical appliances in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner made a complaint about the same, pursuant to which the premises of the petitioner was inspected. The petitioner made a complaint about the same, pursuant to which the premises of the petitioner was inspected. Though, the petitioner consented for meter testing, as per Nigam's own regulation, the meter should have been tested at the 3rd party facility approved by the Commission however, the meter of the petitioner was tested at MRT Division of the respondent-Board at Ranchi. The petitioner raised objection to the meter testing report however, the same has not been considered by the Jharkhand Urja Bikas Nigam Limited. It is further submitted that the respondent-Nigam should have taken into consideration the previous meter reading and the energy consumption in the premises of the petitioner however, without considering the same, the plea taken by the petitioner has been rejected. 6. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Nigam reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that in view of the meter testing report, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the energy bill raised for the month of June, 2012. It is further submitted that there is no provision for raising energy bill on the basis of 12 months' energy consumption and therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the learned Forum. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. Referring to the objection as to the maintainability on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, I find that vide order dated 07.05.2014, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and ordered resumption of the electric connection within two days. The respondents thereafter, filed counter-affidavit and the petitioner has filed supplementary counter-affidavit. After the parties exchanged affidavits and after this Court passed interim order directing the respondents to restore electric supply at the premises of the petitioner and the interim order has been complied with, the objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 9. I find that Clause 13.4 of the Supply Code Regulation provides for testing and maintaining of meter. The distribution licensee is responsible for maintenance of correct meter and its periodic testing. 9. I find that Clause 13.4 of the Supply Code Regulation provides for testing and maintaining of meter. The distribution licensee is responsible for maintenance of correct meter and its periodic testing. It further provides that on the written complaint of the consumer or otherwise, if it is found that the meter is not recording accurately, the same should be sent for testing for 3rd party facility approved by the Commission. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the premises of the petitioner was inspected on 10.09.2012 when the meter reading was found 78711 Kwh. It is not in dispute that the consumption of 73207 units for the month of June, 2012 was absolutely abnormal and thus, after the inspection on 10.09.2012, the respondent-Nigam was under a duty to send the electric meter for testing however, at the relevant point in time it was not sent for testing. The specific case of the petitioner is that in the month of June, 2012 there was sudden high voltage due to which several electric appliances in the house of the petitioner were damaged. The petitioner made complaint in this regard and thereafter, the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the officers of the respondent-Nigam. In the counter-affidavit, though, the respondents have denied the complaint made by the petitioner, they themselves have accepted that the premises of the petitioner was inspected on 10.09.2012. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Nigam, I find that it is not the case of the respondents that the inspection dated 10.09.2012 was a routine inspection. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that even if a case of theft was initiated, the maximum energy consumption would be computed at 2592 units whereas, the respondent-Nigam has raised bill for 73207 units. Further the meter in question was installed in the month of February, 2011 and the bill upto June, 2012 for 17 months thus should have been 44064 units only whereas, for one month's consumption, the petitioner has been charged for 73207 units which is absolutely arbitrary. I am of the opinion that merely on a technical plea that the accuracy of the meter has been found within permissible limit, the patent absurdity in meter recording cannot be ignored. It is an admitted fact that the meter testing was not done under adverse condition nor at a 3rd party facility approved by the Commission. I am of the opinion that merely on a technical plea that the accuracy of the meter has been found within permissible limit, the patent absurdity in meter recording cannot be ignored. It is an admitted fact that the meter testing was not done under adverse condition nor at a 3rd party facility approved by the Commission. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has produced chart of meter reading for 24 months, which also reflects the average consumption of 500 to 600 per month only. The respondents have claimed that during the inspection on 10.09.2012 it was found that total load in the premises of the petitioner was 7 kw more than the total sanctioned load however, it is also an admitted position that no penalty has been imposed by the respondents. The energy bills raised for the previous months prior to installation of new meter and 12 months after the new meter was installed, do not indicate any abnormal consumption in one month. 10. Section 114(d) of the Evidence Act raises a presumption of the continuation of things in the said state in which it once existed. Thus, the things once proved to have existed in a particular state are to be understood as continuing in that state. However, it is rebuttable presumption subject to logical limit. In “Ambika Prasad Thakur and others Vs. Ram Ekbal Rai (dead) by his legal representatives and others” reported in AIR 1966 SC 605 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “15. ….....Now, if a thing or a state of things is shown to exist, an inference of its continuity within a reasonably proximate time both forwards and backwards may sometimes be drawn. The presumption of future continuance is noticed in illustration (d) to S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In appropriate cases, an inference of the continuity of a thing or state of things backwards may be drawn under this section, though on this point the section does not give a separate illustration.......” 11. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has brought on record energy bills prior to installation of new meter and after the installation of new meter also. In view of pattern of energy consumption appearing from the energy bills, there would be presumption that for the month of June, 2012 also the energy consumed would be within the same range. In the present proceeding, the petitioner has brought on record energy bills prior to installation of new meter and after the installation of new meter also. In view of pattern of energy consumption appearing from the energy bills, there would be presumption that for the month of June, 2012 also the energy consumed would be within the same range. The meter reading for the month of June, 2012 cannot be said to have rebutted the aforesaid presumption because it is not within logical limit. Since the above aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Jharkhand Urja Bikas Nigam Limited and therefore, the order dated 23.11.2013 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.3Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Ranchi, Jharkhand Urja Bikas Nigam Limited, Ranchi for examining the matter afresh and to issue the modified energy bill for the month of June, 2012. 12. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1357 of 2014 and I.A. No. 1800 of 2014 stand disposed of.