Aftab Alam, J.

1. Heard Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, learned Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition and Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, learned Counsel for the Board.

2. In this case the Board seems to have acted with gross irregularity as a result of which the petitioner who is a domestic consumer with a load of 1 KW was subjected to great harassment. The meter installed at the residence of the petitioner went out of order and the Board started billing him on an average of 113 units per month. According to the petitioner, the Board had taken a very high figure for average billing and the actual consumption of the petitioner was much lower. As a result of the average billing outstanding dues against the petitioner amounted to around Rs. 5000/- by February, 1997. At that stage being threatened with the disconnection of line he made an ad-hoc payment of Rs. 3000/-. He also purchased a meter at his own cost and after it was passed by the Board, the meter was installed on 8.3.1997. Notwithstanding the installation of a new meter and the repeated protests made by . the petitioner, the Board continued to raise bills on the basis of the average of 113 units per month and it was only after three and a half years that someone from the Board came to take the meter reading in June/July, 2000. At that time the meter recorded consumption of 2761 units. In the next bill issued by the Board, apart from the arrears accumulating as a result of the average billings, further charges for consumption of energy for the period March, 1997 to June/July 2000 were levied all over again on the basis of the meter reading.

3. In this highly erratic manner the petitioners billing went on and on one or two occasions the petitioner made some ad- hoc payments, under protest, on the threat of disconnection of his line.

4. Finally in he bill of April, 2002 an arrear of Rs. 22,988.50 paise was shown.

5. At that stage the petitioner came to this Court in this writ petition seeking a direction to the Board to raise his bills on the basis of the meter readings and to correct the previous billings. During the pendency of this case the Board seems to have released its mistake and in the counter-affidavit a revised account is furnished as part of Annexure-A series. At the end of the computation it is stated that the dues, as per Ledger, upto April 2002 was Rs. 22,988.53 paise out on a revision of the account the petitioner was liable to pay only a sum of Rs. 7,877.30 and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 15,111.23 paise was being deducted from the ledger.

6. From the revised account it appears that for the period October, 1996 to June 2000 the petitioner was billed @ 67 units per month and thereafter the billing was made on the basis of the actual meter readings.

7. Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revised account was correct to the extent of raising bills on an average of 67 units per month from October, 1996 to June, 2000 and thereafter on the basis of the actual meter readings but the delayed payment surcharge was added in the revised calculation also and it was by the addition of delayed payment surcharge that the amount of Rs. 7877.30 paise was arrived at as the charges leviable from the petitioner.

8. Learned Counsel submitted that as the Board had persisted in giving incorrect and wrong bills to the petitioner for over a period of 5 to 6 years, it was no longer open to it to levy any delayed payment surcharge in the revised bill which was being prepared after a lapse of 5 to 6 years. In support of his submission he relied upon a decision of. this Court in Gaya Roller Flour Mills (P) Limited v. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. 1995 (2) PLJR 715 ( Para-9).

9. Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh submitted that in revised bill, delayed payment surcharge was levied on arrears which had been computed validly and remained unpaid by the petitioner. Mr. Singh submitted that the delayed payment surcharge was levied only on the energy charges for 67 units per month or the units actually consumed as per the meter during the later part of the disputed period.

10. I am not satisfied by the explanation submitted by Mr. Singh and in my opinion it appears to be a fit case in which the Board is trying to charge the petitioner for lapses and mistakes committed by the Boards officials. The levy of delayed payment surcharge is accordingly held to be invalid and illegal and the respondents are directed to further revise the account discounting the delayed payment surcharge.

11. It may also be noted that as the present meter installed in the petitioners premises was purchased by the petitioner himself, the Board does not seem to have any justification for charging meter rent for that meter. In the revision of account and in raising a fresh bill the authorities must also bear this in mind.

12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.