JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "(i) to quash and set aside the order dated 22.06.2018 whereby a non-speaking and perverse order has been passed by the Corporate level grievance redressal cum settlement forum without considering the detailed representation submitted by the petitioner. (ii) to quash and set aside the impugned illegal demand raised through electricity bill for an amount of Rs.13,34,878/- by respondent for the month of Nov. 2014 on the basis of MCO No.39095. (iii) to quash and set aside the order dated 16.05.2015 whereby the electricity supply connection of the petitioner business unit was disconnected. (iv) to direct the respondent to restore the electricity supply connection of the petitioner firm for regular running the business of marble. (v) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court consider just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner was carrying on the business of marble through his sole proprietorship concern since 1976. The petitioner-Firm is holding commercial electricity connection whose sanctioned load is of 19 Kilowatt in NDSLT category for regular running of business of the Firm. The electricity account number of the petitioner-Firm is 0807/0286, which was being used for running the business of petitioner-Firm. The connection was running till 16.05.2015. The petitioner had claimed that he was not utilizing the sanctioned load of 19 Kilowatt due to non-availability of the water in tubewell and was using motor of 71/2 H.P. only. The change of meter in the premises of the Firm was undertaken by MCO (Meter Change Order) No.39095 as issued by the respondents authorities on 28.07.2014, whereby the defective meter was removed from the premises, wherein the last reading of the meter was 1,99,308 units, as noted by the Meter Reader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm claims that the MCO does not bear signatures of the petitioner, which was disputed by the respondents. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm claims that the MCO does not bear signatures of the petitioner, which was disputed by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm submits that on a bare perusal of the MCO issued by the respondents authorities, it is clearly revealed that figures in the display of the meter were cut and were not clearly visible and thus, the meter reader probably made a mistake while noting 1,99,308 units in the MCO, while issuing bill for the month of November, 2014 to the tune of Rs.13,34,878/-. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm submits that by no stretch of imagination, the petitioner-Firm could have consumed the electricity of 1,83,919 units, and that the petitioner filed an application for correction of the bill on 23.12.2014 with no respite. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm submits that the meter reading on an earlier occasion just before the so called faulty reading, which reads as follows: 7. By this document, learned counsel for the petitionerFirm has demonstrated that the petitioner-Firm on the earlier occasion was consuming lesser electricity i.e. about 1300 units approximately and the meter reading itself as in five figures. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm submits that on a bare perusal, the meter reading, which was existing, touched a figure of 15,742 only and thus, could not have suddenly jump to 1,99,308, which was the meter reading in the MCO dated 28.07.2014. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Firm was asked to submit the bill amount from March, 2014 to May, 2015, which reads as follow: 10. The bill amount at most was Rs.12,000/- per month, and therefore, by no means, it could reach to Rs.13,34,878 for the month of November suddenly. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to refute the meter reading of the bills provided by the petitionerFirm. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that the respondents shall go with the meter reading given the MCO and cannot reduce the same at the instance of the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has further justified the meter reading. 14. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that the respondents shall go with the meter reading given the MCO and cannot reduce the same at the instance of the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has further justified the meter reading. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that by all reasonable and prudent indications, the petitioner-Firm's meter reading climbing from 397 on 04.01.2013 to 15,742 on 13.10.2014 could not have jumped to 1,99,308 in November, 2014.. 15. This Court has also seen the bills of the complete year, which recorded maximum billing amount of Rs.12,420/- per month, and therefore, even by all the utilization possible, the petitioner-Firm could not have reached the amount of Rs.13,34,878/- for November, 2014. On the face of the record, it is clear that the meter reader has given 1,99,308 instead of 19,308 and a bill of Rs.13,348/- has been escalated to Rs.13,34,878/-. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is clearly applicable and the petitioner's version is established on the face of the record. 16. By all comparison and perusal of the complete record, this Court finds that in the given facts when the respondents are not in a position to refute the meter readings earlier recorded as well as the bills provided by the petitioner, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The orders dated 22.06.2018 and 16.05.2015; and the demand raised through electricity bill for an amount of Rs.13,34,878/- for the month of November, 2014 on the basis of MCO No.39095 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner-Firm's electricity connection shall be immediately restored. However, the respondents shall be free to raise the bill as per the meter reading 19,308 and the petitioner shall be required to pay the same.