ORDER: The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (A) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), directing upon the respondents to show cause, as to how an amount of Rs. 18,43,102/- has been inserted in the energy bill for the month of April 2015, purportedly on account of short unit charged in the month of August & September, 2013 inasmuch as the bills raised for the period in question has been paid way back in the respective months itself, which is directly in conflict with the Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. (B) For issuance of an appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the energy bill dated 10.06.2015 for the month of May 2015, to the extent it relates to imposition of arrears of Rs. 18,43,102/- along with Delayed Payment Surcharge levied thereupon and Voltage Rebate/Load Factor Rebate having been denied on account of purported arrears in terms of the energy bill of April, 2015. (C) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or directions(s), directing upon the respondents to carry out necessary rectification in the energy bills commencing from September 2008 till date to the extent it relates to the allowable rebates in terms of 2004 Tariff Order, 2010 Tariff Order and 2012-13 Tariff Order respectively. (D) For issuance of appropriate writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to grant interest on security deposit at Bank Rate as enumerated under Section 47(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and as has been laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 1091/2006 dated 25.09.2012 which having not been challenged has attained finality, in terms of which interest @ 9% per annum is allowable on the security deposit. (E) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or directions(s), directing upon the respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority the order dated 20.02.2015, passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 5472/2010 has been withheld for want of sanction from the Senior Officers, although reminders/representation are pending at the end of Licensee at the strength of order aforesaid. (F) For issuance of any other appropriate direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 2. (F) For issuance of any other appropriate direction(s) or order(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in view of the facts & circumstances of the case for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts narrated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner is an Industrial Unit engaged in manufacture and sale of Iron & Steel products. For grant of contract demand of 1200 KVA, in pursuance of sanction letter dated 05.02.2007, an agreement was entered into between the parties. The petitioner deposited Rs. 9,00,000/- towards security deposit in May, 2007. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited Rs. 30,00,000/- towards security deposit for enhanced load in August, 2013. It is stated that the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 5472 of 2010 challenging the bills raised by the licensee which were contrary to the tariff order and the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 20.02.2015 directing the respondent-JSEB to raise fresh bill as per tariff order. A further direction was issued for refund/adjustment of excess amount paid by the petitioner. An amount of Rs. 24,43,640/- was demanded with the energy bill for the month of April, 2015 purportedly on account of short unit charge in the month of September and October, 2013. Subsequently, the said bill was revised and the amount for short unit charge was reduced to Rs. 18,43,102/-. It is stated that the coram of the Electricity Forum constituted under Section 42(5) of 2003 Act is not complete and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that in so far as, challenge to the demand of Rs. 18,43,102/- on account of short unit charge is concerned, the petitioner is not pressing the same however, in view of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents stating that short unit charge for the month of July, 2013 would be raised after calculating the same, the petitioner may be permitted to challenge the same, if necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the short unit charge for the month of August and September, 2013 has been raised after an inordinate delay and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to make payment for Delayed Payment Surcharge. The bill for Rs. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the short unit charge for the month of August and September, 2013 has been raised after an inordinate delay and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to make payment for Delayed Payment Surcharge. The bill for Rs. 18,43,102/- on account of short unit charge cannot be termed as arrears and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for voltage rebate/load factor rebate. It is further submitted that in view of Section 47(4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner is entitled for grant of interest on security deposit at bank rate. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that order in W.P.(C) No. 5472 of 2010 has been challenged in L.P.A. No. 352 of 2015 and the same is pending disposal before a Division Bench of this Court. The bills raised for the month of July, August and September, 2013 were raised applying lesser multiplying factor. For the month of July, 2013 the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 30,50,900/-, for August, 2013 Rs. 35,00,644/- and for September, 2013 Rs. 38,81,797/whereas, bills were raised for the month of July, 2013 for Rs. 23,16,236/-, for August, 2013 for Rs. 26,18,788/- and for September, 2013 for Rs. 29,11,648/. It is further submitted that voltage rebate and load factor rebate were denied to the consumers on account of nonpayment of arrears. 5. In so far as, direction to the respondents for complying order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5472 of 2010 is concerned, as noticed above, the respondents have taken a plea that challenging order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5472 of 2010, Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred and therefore, no direction can be passed for complying order passed in the said writ petition. It is stated that the meter installed at petitioner's premises was burned on 30.07.2013 and after an inspection was carried on 31.07.2013, power supply to the petitioner's unit was restored by installing Check Meter. The new meter was installed on 20.09.2013. The respondents have taken a plea that for the energy consumption for the month of July, August and September, 2013, multiplying factor of Check Meter has to be applied. The respondents have raised bill for Rs. 18,43,102/- on account of short unit charge. The new meter was installed on 20.09.2013. The respondents have taken a plea that for the energy consumption for the month of July, August and September, 2013, multiplying factor of Check Meter has to be applied. The respondents have raised bill for Rs. 18,43,102/- on account of short unit charge. Though, the challenge to the bill raised on account of short unit charge has been withdrawn by the petitioner, I find that the said amount has been shown as arrears in the energy bill for May, 2015. It is stated that the petitioner has continued to make payment of monthly energy bills raised by the respondents. The bill for short unit charge for the month of August and September, 2013 has been issued in the energy bill for the month of May, 2015. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have stated that Delayed Payments Surcharge has not been levied for the bill raised on account of short multiplying factor used. The respondents in my opinion thus, cannot deny the consumer the benefit of load factor rebate and voltage rebate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make payment of Rs. 18,43,102/- in 8 equal installments. I am of the opinion that the respondents were negligent in not issuing correct energy bill, by applying correct multiplying factor, in time. Now, by asking the consumer to make payment of Rs. 18,43,102/- immediately, the respondents have put an additional burden on the consumer. In my opinion, this is not a case of delayed payment by the petitioner and the respondents have themselves admitted that they have not levied Delayed Payment Surcharge. The petitioner should be granted reasonable time for making payment of the said amount. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to make payment of Rs. 18,43,102/- in 8 equal monthly installments starting from August, 2015. The monthly installments shall be paid within first 7 days of each calendar month. For the bill on account of short energy supply for the month of July, 2013, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the same, if need arises. 18,43,102/- in 8 equal monthly installments starting from August, 2015. The monthly installments shall be paid within first 7 days of each calendar month. For the bill on account of short energy supply for the month of July, 2013, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the same, if need arises. In W.P.(C) No. 1091 of 2006, taking note of decision of this Court and provisions under the Act and the Electricity Supply Code, the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered that the licensee would be liable to pay interest at bank rate notified by RBI from time to time. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have admitted that interest on the security deposit shall be calculated and adjusted in the subsequent bills at RBI rate of interest and 2005 Rules. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondents shall issue revised bill granting admissible voltage rebate and load factor rebate to the consumer. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. Petition disposed of.