JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called upon for hearing. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent APDCL and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent BTC authorities. 2. The writ petitioner herein, being a NGO had entered into an agreement dated 01.03.2006 with the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB), by which, it was provided that the ASEB desires to get the job of revenue realization from the persons using electricity from its source in some of the areas to be defined through a decided agency and the petitioner is agreeable and prepared to carry out the said job of realization of the monthly revenue along with some other works. 3. Clause-11 of the said agreement provides that the agency shall pay to the Board each month for the electrical energy supplied during the preceding month to be calculated on the basis of the meter reading for the given month. Clause-8 of the agreement further provides that if the meters are found to be defective or have stopped from functioning, the same shall be replaced immediately by the ASEB and during the stop gap period, the average billing will be done as per terms and condition of supply of ASEB. It is also provided that the agency would be entitled to make application to the Board to have a test conducted of the meters at any time and the expenses of such test shall be borne by the Board. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 03.12.2010 of the Senior Manager, Kokrajhar Electrical Division, by which due to non-payment of the outstanding arrears, the petitioner was put on notice that on the failure on their part to clear all the outstanding dues within the stipulated period, the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent ASEB/APDCL shall be treated to have been cancelled without any further notice. The aforesaid notice, which provides that the petitioner is required to pay an amount of `5,08,003/- to the respondent ASEB/APDCL, has been assailed in this writ petition. 5. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the meters, based upon which the electricity charges are to be calculated, were found to be defective or not functioning. The aforesaid notice, which provides that the petitioner is required to pay an amount of `5,08,003/- to the respondent ASEB/APDCL, has been assailed in this writ petition. 5. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that the meters, based upon which the electricity charges are to be calculated, were found to be defective or not functioning. Accordingly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the notice dated 03.12.2010 requiring the petitioner to pay the outstanding arrear of `5,08,003/- is not sustainable. 6. On the other hand, the respondent ASEB had filed an affidavit in opposition, wherein it had been stated that all the necessary steps have been taken to replace the damaged meters wherever any such claim is made by the agencies like that of the petitioner. Further the respondent ASEB also denied that excessive bills had been submitted due to any damaged meters and states that all the bills are prepared on the basis of the actual reading of the meters. It is also stated in the affidavit that whenever there is any damage to any meter, the bills are realized on the basis of the average meter reading of the last three months when the meters were actually operating and the provisions thereof is available in Clause-4.2.2.4 of the terms and conditions of the supply. It is also the stand of the respondent ASEB/APDCL that there had been no such application from the petitioner requesting the ASEB/APDCL to make any correction as regards any of the meters under their operation. 7. Be that as it may, the respondent authorities had also taken a ground that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Clause-19 of the agreement dated 01.03.2006, which provides for an arbitration between the parties in the event of there being any dispute as regards the implementation of the agreement. Clause-19 of the agreement reads as follows:- “DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION: Disputes under this agreement shall be settled by mutual discussion. Failing this, the disputes shall be referred to arbitration as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator shall be appointed as mutually agreed upon and the arbitration award shall be binding on both the parties. The parties of the agreement shall continue to fulfill their obligation under the agreement during arbitration proceedings and no payment shall be withheld on this account unless it is a subject matter of dispute. The arbitrator shall be appointed as mutually agreed upon and the arbitration award shall be binding on both the parties. The parties of the agreement shall continue to fulfill their obligation under the agreement during arbitration proceedings and no payment shall be withheld on this account unless it is a subject matter of dispute. For disposal of dispute between the Agency and the consumers, concerned SDE, ASEB will be the deciding authority and the concern Executive Engineer will be the reviewing authority. The CE(Com) will exercise the right of appeal against the decision of the reviewing authority.” 8. On a reading of Clause-19, it is seen that all disputes in the agreement are required to be settled at the first instance by a mutual discussion and only upon failure of the mutual discussion, the disputes are required to be referred to arbitration as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On a further perusal of Clause-19 of the agreement, it is also seen that prior to the matter being referred for arbitration, it is a condition precedent that the parties must first make an endeavour to settle the matter by mutual discussion. 9. In any view of the matter, the issues raised by the writ petitioner is that excess billings had been made by taking advantage of some defective meters. As such, a factual adjudication would be required as to whether the meters were actually damaged or not and if damaged, as to what ought to have been the appropriate figure to be charged by following the terms and conditions of the agreement. Secondly, on the stand taken by the respondent authorities that no such meters were damaged, a factual determination would also require as to whether any meter was damaged or not and also as to whether the petitioner had made any application to the respondent ASEB/APDCL intimating about such damaged meters. 10. Therefore, by taking into consideration the provisions of Clause-19 of the agreement dated 01.03.2006 and also in view of the aspect that an adjudication would be required on disputed questions of fact, this Court deems it appropriate that the respondent ASEB/APDCL authorities be directed to initiate a mutual discussion to settle the dispute with the petitioner, as provided in Clause-19 of the agreement. In any view of the matter, as there is an arbitration clause, this writ petition may not be maintainable to adjudicate such a dispute. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that as provided in Clause-19 of the agreement dated 01.03.2006, the respondent ASEB may issue notice to the petitioner for initiating a mutual discussion to settle the dispute in question. In the event, such notice is served on the petitioner; it will be incumbent on the petitioner to appear before the respondent ASEB/APDCL for undertaking the exercise of a mutual discussion. 12. The aforesaid requirement of issuing notice be carried out by the respondent ASEB/APDCL within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.