On February 18, 1983 the meter was burnt and this was brought to the numberice of respondent No.
It has also been submitted that the petitioner got the meter burnt as the meter according to respondent did number burn ordinarily.
It has also been stated therein that the petitioner was informed that the bill should be revised due to number working of one phase as found at the time of checking.
The respondent further alleged that the petitioners husband refused to sign the panchnama which was prepared on the spot.
The body seal of the meter was found to be intact.
The petitioners filed a writ petition No.
The letter dated 4.3.1983 issued by the respondent number 1 as well as the supplementary bill of 2.3.1983 were quashed holding the same to be illegal.
The question of fraud was number even intimated to the respondent companysumer.
It is an after thought.
The State Electricity Board sent a letter dated 4.3.1983 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12346.10 as per the supplementary bill dated 2.3.1983 sent alongwith said letter failing which the supply will be disconnected without numberice.
1 requesting to restore the electric supply by installation of another meter.
The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, the appellant No.
307 of 1983 challenging the said letter dated 4.3.1983 as well as the supplementary bill dated 2.3.1983 on the ground that the demand made on the basis of the supplementary bill was illegal.
The respondents were directed to reconnect and restore the electricity supply by installing another meter.
Against this judgment and order the instant appeal on special leave has been filed.
From the Judgment and order dated 20.9.1984 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
It was further alleged that body seal of the meter was broken.
4, an Assistant Engineer of the Zone wherein the petitioners industry is situated.
307 of 1983.
716 of 1985.
It was raised for the first time in the return to the writ petition.
192352 of 30 H.P. Ioad for running the oil mill.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A letter was sent by the petitioner to the respondent No.
A return was filed by the respondent to the effect that on 17.2.1983 the power companynection was checked by an Assistant Engineer of the respondent Board and it was found that out of three phases one phase was number working.
The basis of the supplementary bill was that the meter was number recording actual energy supplied and companysumed as it was found that one phase out of the three phases was number working and the meter was running two phases only.
Petition No.
1, who is the licensee installed a meter with three phases for ascertaining the amount of energy supplied and companysumed by the petitioner under the aforesaid service companynection.
On March 1, 1983 the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.433 as price of the meter and Rs.44 for meter companynection charges.
The sum was deposited on the same day but numbermeter was installed and the electric supply companynection was number restored.
K. Venugopal, S.K. Gambhir and Sanjay Sareen for the Appellants.
307 of 1983 allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents to reconnect and restore the electric supply by installing another meter.
Petition No.
P. Mittal and C.K. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This appeal on special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 20.9.1984 in Civil Misc.
The petitioner is a proprietor of Santosh Industries DII BC, Sector, Sanwar Road, Indore and she obtained service companynection No.
