The petitioner is a Small Scale Industrial Unit. The premises of the petitioner unit was inspected by the anti power theft squad under the respondent board on 10.07.2003. In the inspection, it was revealed that the Meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was not recording in two of the phases. Accordingly, the average consumption for the previous six months was computed as recorded in the Meter and the figure was multiplied to record the average of consumption in all the three phases. The petitioner was then issued with a bill for recovery of the differential electricity charges. Aggrieved by the said bill, the petitioner preferred an appeal in terms of the Electricity Act and by Ext.P5 order dated 05.12.2006, the appellate authority confirmed the demand against the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. In the writ petition, Ext.P5 appellate order is impugned. The writ petition came up for admission in February 2007 and the recorded proceedings indicates that there was no stay granted against the demand that was confirmed against the petitioner. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, it is noticed through the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the computation of the average
