http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 21  

PETITIONER: BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.ETC.ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/07/1997

BENCH: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH (CIVIL APPEAL  NOS. 1571  OF 1987,  2538 OF 1985 AND 1255 OF 1986)                       J U D G M E N T G.N.RAY,J.      The appeals  arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos. 5262-64 of  1992 are  directed against  order dated February 19, 1992  passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court  disposing   of  Writ  Petition  Nos.  10379  of  1988 challenging the  notice dated  April 26, 1988 and the demand dated May  17, 1988  of the  U.P.State Electricity Board and Writ Petition  No. 16723/88  and  16325/90  challenging  the validity of  the bills  for the month of June and july, 1988 issued by  the u.p.  State Electricity  Board and  also  the deamdn dated  June 14,  1990 made by the said Board.  By the impugned judgment  dated Febraury  19, 1992,  the High Court guashed various  demand notices  issued to  the appellant on the basis  of  check  meters  installed  by  the  respondent U.P.State Electricity  Board and  directing that payment for six months  would be  made  on  the  basis  of  estimate  of Electrical Inspector  dated october  10,  1990  and  further directing that  the fresh  bills for  the period  7.9.87  to 10.10.90 be  issued on the basis of new meter.  By the order dated March  10, 1992,  the Division  Bench of  the Allahand High Court  passed an interim order on another Writ Petition filed by  the appellant  on March  9, 1992  challenging  the action of  the U.P.  State Electricikty  Board in respect of the bill dated January, 1992 and disconnecting the supply of electricity in  the factory  of the appellant.  By the order dated March  10, 1992, the High Court directed the appellant to deposit  Rs. 10  lacs and on such deposit, the u.P. State Electricity Board  was to  restore the  connection within 24 house and also directing the U.P. State Electricity Board to prepare the  bills for  the period  subsequent  to  10.10.90 within a  month with a further direction to the appellant to pay such bill within a month thereafter.      The relevant facts leading to the controversy as to the raising  demands   for  the   bills  and  the  consequential direction passed  by the  High Court on February 19,1992 and March 10, 1992 are stated hereunder.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 21  

    On  Febraury  7,  1986  U.P.  State  electricity  Board installed a  meter bearing No. 5850497 in the factory of the apopellant.  The Board carried out periodical inspection and tests and  had raised  the bills  on the  basis of  the said installed meter  and the appellant had also paid such bills. On September  7, 1987,  the  U.p.  State  Electricity  Board issued a  notice raising  doubt about the correctness of the said meter  No. 5850497.  On October 25, 1987, the appellant controverted  the   contents  of  the  said  notice  of  the Electricity Board  and asserted  that the meter was correct. No reference  to the  Electrical Inspector  was  made  under Section 26  of the  Electricity Act, 1910 by the Board.  The Board installed  a check  meter on  November 30,  1987.  The appellan, however,  deposited the  testing fee and requested the Electricity  Board to  check the  said test  meter.  The Board, however, continued to raise the bills on the basis of the said  check meter  for the period December, 1987 to May, 1988.   On April 26, 1988 to November, 1987 could be revised o the  basis of  check meter  and sought information for the purpose of  revising of the bills prior to 1987.  On May 17, 1987,   the   Electricity   Board   raised   a   demand   of Rs.10,70,886.82 for  the period  May, 1987 to November, 1987 on the  basis of  readings in  the check meter and threatene the appellant  that  the  electricity  connection  would  be discontinued if  the payment  was not  made.  It was at this stage that  the appellant moved a Writ Petition No. 10379 of 1988 challenging  the said  notice dated  April 26, 1988 and the demand  datd may  17, 1988.   During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the electricity Board again raised bills for teh months of June, 1988 on the basis of check meter and also thereatened  the appellant  that disconnection would be restorted to  if the  payment was  not made.   The appellant then  moved   another  Writ  Petition  No.  1672/88  in  the Allahabad High Court challenging the said bills for June and July, 1988.   By an interim order, the High Court restrained the  desconnection   of  the   electric  supply  subject  to thepayment of electricity dues by the appellant on the basis of original  meter reading  and furnishing security and bank guarantee for  Rs.1 lakh every month.  The Electricity Board raised additional demand of Rs. 5,54,963.64 ending July 1988 on the  basis of check meter.  The appellant moved the third Writ Petition  on June  21  1990  being  writ  petition  No. 16325/90 challenging  the demand  dated June 4, 1990 for the said sum  of Rs.  5, 54,963.64.   The  High Court  passed an interim order  staying  the  operation  of  the  demand  and directed the  appellant deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-.  It may be  stated that  on July  9, 1988  the appellant made an application for  reference to  the Electrical  Inspector  to check the  correctness of  the original  meter and  also the check meter.   Between  26th June, 1990 and 28th June, 1990, the work  of inspection  was carried  out and on October 10, 1990 the  Electrical Inspector submitted a report containing his decision  under Section  26(6) of  the Electricity  Act, 1910.   In the  said report,  the Electrical  Inspector held that  the   original  meter  as  well  as  the  check  meter incorrect.   The Electrical Inspector made an estimae of the energy supplied  to the  appellant during  the period of six months from  December, 1989  to May, 1990 and authorised the Board to  raise a  deamnd accordingly  for a  period of  six months and  the Electrical  Inspector also directed that the original  meter  as  well  as  the  check  meter  should  be installed under SEction 26(1) of the Electricity Act.      As aforesaid,  on Febraury 19, 1992, by common judgment the High  Court disposed  of all  the said Writ Petitions by quashing various  demand notices  issued on the basis of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 21  

check meter  and directing  that the  payment be made on the basis of  estmate of  Electrical Inspector dated October 10, 1990 in  respect of  the said  period of six months and also directed that  fresh bills  for teh period September 7, 1987 to October  10, 1990  be issued  on the  basis of new meter. Thereafter, the fourth Writ Petition not numbered as yet was moved by  the appellant  on March 9, 1992 in respect of bill for January,  1992 in  which an  interim order was passed on March 10,  1992.  Such interim order is also impugned in one of these appeals.      MR. Sunil  Gupta the  learned counsel appearing for the appellant in  these appeals has contended that under SEction 20  of   the  Indian   Electricity  Act,   1910,  the  State Electricity Board  being the licensee has power to enter the premises of  the appellant  and to  remove fittings  where a supply f  energy is  no longer  required.   The licensee has also the power of inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electric  supply-lines, meters,  fittings and  apparatus for the  supply of  energy belonging  to the  licensee.  The Board is  also empowered  to ascertain  the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply.      Mr. Gupta  has drawn  the attention  of  the  Court  to Section 26(6) of the India Electricity Act, 1910 as it stood before the amendment to the following effect.      Section   26(60    :   Where    any      difference or  dispute arises as to      whether any  meter  rferred  to  in      sub-section  (1)   is  or   is  not      correct,  the   matter   shall   be      decided, upon  the  application  of      either  party,   by  an  Electrical      Inspector, or  a  competent  person      specially appointed  by  the  State      Government  in   this  behalf,  and      where the meter has, in the opinion      of such Inspector or person, ceased      to be  correct, such  Inspector  or      person shall estimate the amount of      the energy supplied to the consumer      or    the    electrical    quantity      contained  in  the  supply,  during      such time as the meter shall not in      the opinion  of such  Inspector  or      person have been correct, and where      the matter  has been decided by any      person other  than  the  Electrical      Inspector, an  appeal shall liew to      the Inspector, whose decision shall      in every case be final; but save as      aforesaid,  the   register  of  the      meter  shall,  in  the  absence  of      frand, be  coclusive peroof of such      amount of quantity:      Provided  that   before  either   a      licensee or  a consumer  applies to      the Electrical Inspector under this      sub-section, he  shall give  to the      other party noless than seven days’      notice of his intention so to do.      Mr. Gupta has also drawn the attention of the Court  to the provisions  of Section  26 of the Indian Electricity Act as it stands amended by Act No.32 of 1959 :-      26 Meters  : (1)  In the absence of      an   agreement to  the contray, the      amount  of  energy  supplied  to  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 21  

    consumer or the electrical quantity      contained in  the supply  shall  be      ascertained by  means of  a correct      meter, and  the licensee  shall, if      required by the consumer, cause the      consumer to be supplied with such a      meter :      Proided  that   the  licensee   may      require the  consumer to  give  him      security for  the price  of a meter      and enter into an agreement for the      hire thereof,  unless the  consumer      elects to purchase a meter.      (2) Where  the consumer  so  enters      into an  agreement for the hireof a      meter, the  license shall  keep the      meter correct,  and, in  default of      his doing  so, the  consumer shall,      for  so   long   as   the   default      continues, cease  to be  liable  to      pay for the hire of the meter.      (3) Where the meter is the property      of the  consumer, he shall keep the      meter correct,  and in  default  of      his doing  so,  the  licensee  may,      after giving him seven days notice,      for  so   long   as   the   default      continues, cease  to supply  energy      through the meter.      (4) The licensee or any person duly      authorised by  the licensee  shall,      at  any   reasonable  time  and  on      informing  the   consumer  of   his      intention, have  access to,  and be      at liberty to inspect and test, and      for that purpose, if he thinks fit,      take  off   and  remove  any  meter      referred to  in sub-section  (1)  :      and except where the meter is hired      as   aforesaid,    all   reasonable      expenses  of,  and  incidental  to,      such inspecting  testing, taking of      and removing shall, if the meter is      found to be otherwise than correct,      be  recovered  from  the  consumer,      and,  where   any   difference   or      dispute arises  as to the amount of      such   reasonable   expenses,   the      matter  shall  be  referred  to  an      Electrical   Inspector,   and   the      decision of such Inspector shall be      final:      (5)    ...........        .........      ..........      (6) Where any difference or dispute      arises  as  to  whether  any  meter      referred to  in sub-section  (1) is      or is not correct, the matter shall      be decided, upon the application of      either  party,   by  an  Electrical      Inspector, and where the meter has,      in the  opinion of  such  Inspector      ceased   to    be   correct,   such      Inspector shall estimate the amount      of  the   energy  supplied  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 21  

    consumer or the electrical quantity      contained  in  the  supply,  during      such  time,   not   exceeding   six      months, as  the meter shall not, in      the opinion  of such Inspector have      been   correct;    but   save    as      aforesaid,  the   register  of  the      meter  shall,  in  the  absence  of      fraud, be  conclusive proof of such      amount or quantity:      Provided  that   before  either   a      licensee or  a consumer  applis  to      the electrical Inspector under this      sub-section, he  shall give  to the      other party  not  less  than  seven      days’ notice of his intention so to      do.      (7) In  addition to any meter which      maybe placed upon the premises of a      consumer  in   pursuance   of   the      provisions of  sub-section 91), the      licensee  may   place   upon   such      premises such meter, maximum demand      indicator or  other apparatus as he      thinks  fit   for  the  prupose  of      ascertaining or  regulating  either      the amount  of energy  supplied  to      the  consumer,  or  the  number  of      hours  during  which  the  supplyis      given, or the rate per unit of time      at which  energy is supplied to the      consumer, or  any other  quanity or      time connected with the supply:      Provided that  the meter, indicator      or  apparatus  shall  not,  in  the      absence  of   an  agreement  to  he      contrary be  placed otherwise  than      between the  distributing mains  of      the licensee and any meter referred      to in sub-section (1) :      Provided  also,   that,  where  the      charges for  the supply  of  energy      depend wholly  or partly  upon  the      reading  indicaing   of  any   such      meter, indicator  or  apparatus  as      aforesaid the  licensee  shall,  in      the absence  of an agreement to the      contrary, keep the meter, indicator      or  apparantus   correct,  and  the      provisions of  sub sections (4) (5)      and (6)   shall  in that case apply      as though  the meter,  indicator or      apparatus were  a meter referred to      in sub-section (1).      Explanation  -  A  meter  shall  be      deemed  to   be  "correct"   if  it      registers  the   amount  of  energy      supplied,   or    the    electrical      quantity contained  in the  supply,      within  the  prescribed  limits  of      error   and    a   maximum   demand      indicator   or    other   apparatus      referred  to   in  sub-section  (7)      shall be  deemed to be "correct" if      it complies with such conditions as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 21  

    may be  prescribed in  the case  of      any   such   indicator   or   other      apparatus."      Mr. Gupta  has also drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956.  Rule 57 runs to the following effect:      Rule  57   -Meter,  maximum  demand      indicators and  other apparatus  on      consumers’ premises      (1) Any  meter  or  maximum  demand      indicator or other apparatus placed      upon  a   consumer’s  premises   in      accordance with SEction 26 shall be      of appropriate  capacity and  shall      be deemed  to  be  correct  if  its      limits  of  error  are  within  the      limits specified  in  the  relevant      Indian Standard  Specification  and      where no such specification exists,      the limits of error do not exceed 3      per cent  above or  below  absolute      accuracy at  all loads in excess of      one tenth  of full  load  and  upto      full load.      (2) No  meter shall  register at no      load.      (3) Every supplier shall provide an      maintain in  proper condition  such      suitable  apparatus   as   may   be      prescribed  or   approved  by   teh      Inspector  for   the   examination,      testing and  regulation  of  meters      used or  intended  to  be  used  in      connection  with   the  supply   of      energy:      Provided that the supplier may with the approval of the Inspector and  shall, if  required by  the Inspector,  enter into a  joint arrangement  with any  other supplir  for  the purpose aforesaid.      (4) Every  supplier shall  examine,      test  and   regulate  all   meters,      maximum demand indicators and other      apparatus  for   ascertaining   the      amount of  energy  supplied  before      first    installation     at    the      consumer’s  premises  and  at  such      other intervals  as may be directed      by  the  State  Government  in  the      behalf.      (5) Every supplier shall maintain a      register of meters showing the date      of  the   last  test,   the   error      recorded at  the time  of the test,      limit of  accuracy after adjustment      and  final   test,  the   date   of      installation,           withdrawal,      reinstallation   etc.,    for   the      examination of the Inspector or his      authorised representative.      960 Where  the supplier  has failed      to examine,  test and  regulate the      meters  keep   records  thereof  as      aforesaid, the  Inspector may cause      such meters to be tested and sealed      at the  cost of  the owners  of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 21  

    meters  in   case   it   is   found      defective."      Mr. Gupta  has contended  that on  a correct reading of SEction 26  as a  whole along  with  all  important  deeming clauses in  the Explanation  containing  the  definition  of correct meter as also along with reading of section 26(1) of the Indian  Electricity Act,  it would be evident that there can be  in the  eye of  law only  one ’correct meter’ in the case of any consumer.  The deeming clause in the explanation statutorily determines  and declares  the correctness of the meter if  only it  registers the  amount of  energy supplied within the prescribed limits of error and leaves the same to nobody’s liking  or imagination.   If the meter so installed registers the  amount of energy, the Board has no choice but to accept  it as correct and once a correct meter it must be deemed to  be correct  all along  unless it  is doubted  and dispute is  raised and  thereafter such  meter is  despensed with on being decided that it is incorrect by the Electrical Inspector in  accordance with  the procedure  prescribed  by Section 26(6)  of the  Indian Electricity Act. Mr. Gupta has submitted  that   so  long  meter  on  being  adjudicate  as defective is not discarded by replacing a correct meter, the consumer treats the said meter as the correct and can resist raising the bill on the basis of any other meter.      Mr. Gupta  has submitted  that in the instant case, the Board has  not taken  any  step  to  refer  the  dispute  to Electrical Inspector  to correct  the meter even when it had doubted about  the correctness  of the installed meter.  The appellant also did not raise any dbout about the correctness of the  said meter.   But  during the  pendency of  the Writ Petition, the  appellant even  though not  required to raise dispute took  steps to get the dispute as to the correctness of the meter referred to the Electrical Inspector. Mr. Gupta has submitted  that the  check meter  installed by the Board cannot be  treated as  a correct  meter  or  replacement  of original meter.   The check meter was installed by teh Board for the  purpose of checking the correctness of the original meter installed earlier.  Therefore, the very purpose of the check meter  was to  take the reading of the check meter fot the purpose  of verifying  the reading in the original meter installed by  the Board.  Mr. Gupta has submitted that until and unless  any dout  raised about  the correctness  of  the meter is  finally scrutinised  and decided by the Electrical Inspector on  a reference  made to such authority, the Board should not  be permitted  to install another meter simply by doubting the  correctness of  the earlier meter installed by it.  Any such libery to be given to the Board will amount to permitting the Board to short circuit and avoid the fair and impartial mechanism  provided under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act.  Mr. Gupta  has contended thay any proposal of correctness  of one  meter by another meter should not be permitted  until  the  corrrectness  of  the  earlier  meter installed  is  finally  decidedby  Electrical  Inspector  as incorrect. Mr.  Gupta has  contended that any libery granted to the Board to continue to dislodge and dislocate one meter after anotehr meter arbitrarily, whimsically and without any reason and  without the  concurrence of the consumer will be loaded with  the potentiality  of grave  mischief  and  high handedness at  the hands  of the  Electricity Board and such action is  bound to seriously impair the rule of law between the  parties   which  is  so  delicaely  maintained  by  the different parts of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act.      According to  Mr. Gupta, the different parts of Section 26 of  the Act only manifest that the original correct meter once  duly  installed  with  the  concurrence  of  concerned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21  

parties,  acquires   a  sacrosanct   status.     After   the installation, neither  party has  the right  to take  off or remove or  replace the meter.  Sub-section (4) of Section 26 permits the  originally installed  correct meter to be taken off and  removed by the Electricity Board, if at all for the purpose  of   inspecting  and   testing,  such   removal  is necessary.   There is  no unlimited  liberty granted  to the Electricity Board or the licensee to take off and remove the originally installed  meter and  replace the same by another meter by  treating such other meter as correct.  Sub-section (6) of  Section 26 of the Electricity Act requires that save as estimated  by the  Electrical Inspector  for a period not exceeding six  months, the  register of  the meter  shall be conclusive proof  of the  amount of  energy supplied  to the consumer.  This limit of six months, according to Mr. Gupta, is to  be corelated  with the primary rule contained in sub- section (1)  of Section  26 of  the Act, which requires that the amount  of energy supplied shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter.      Mr. Gupta  has ubmitted  that Section  21 of the Indian Electricity  Act   bars  and   disentitles  the  Board  from prescribing any  special  form  of  appliance  and  it  also indicates that the original correct meter cannot be tinkered with.   Regulation  21  (ii)  of  the  Electricity  (Supply) Regulations 1984  also provides  for a  check meter only for checking the  accuracy of  the original  meter.  Sub-Section (7) of  Section 26 permits any other meter to be placed upon the consumer’s  premises only in addition to and not in lieu of or  in replacement  of the  meter already placed upon the said premises  in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of  Section 26  of the  Act. If  the Board places in the consumer’s premises  a check  meter and thereafter finalises or regularises  it so  as to  bid farewell  to the  original meter  installed  under  sub-section  (1)  for  purposes  of ascertaining the  amount of energy supplied to the concumer, it must  be held  to be a breach of sub-section (7) inasmuch as such  placement is  in lieu  of and  not in  place of the original meter.   Mr.  Gupta has  submitted that  the  check meter has  only been  placed to check the original meter and suchmeter cannot  directly dislodge  and  replace  the  said original meter and not indirectly allow to do so by means of any process  of formality  of finalisation or regularisation or some other such paper ritual.      Mr. Gupta  has further contended that the law courts in India have  decided that  a check meter can only be used for checking and  not  for  the  purposes  of  regular  reading, billing etc.   Even the impugned judgment had disapproved of such action  and quashed the check meter bills inter alia on the finding  that as  the power  to decide the dispute about the correctness  of the  meter installed  at the  consumer’s remises vests  in Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section  26, it  s not  open to  the Board to assign that power to itself.  it may be open to the Board to install the check meter  to  find  out  the  correctness  of  the  meter originally installed  at the  consumer’s premises  but it is not open to it to send bills on that basis for the period of dispute.   The Board’s  decision about  the  correctness  of meter is  not binding on the consumer and what is binding on him is  the decision  of the Electrical Inspector under Sub- section (6)  of Section  26.   Under these circumstances, if the Board  issues any  additional  bills  for  the  disputed period, it  is not  liable to  be paid by the consumer.  The consumer is  required to  make payment provisionally, during the period  of dispute,  on the  same basis on which payment was being made before the dispute has arisen.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 21  

    Mr. Gupta  has contended  that not  only a  new correct meter cannot  be brought  in  but  truly  speaking  the  old correct meter  cannot be  taken off  or removed or abandoned except  under   the  provisions  of  Section  26(6)  of  the Electricity Act.  Mr. Gupta has also contended that although sub-section (7)  of Section  26 permits the Board to use, in addition to  the meter installed under sub-section (1), such other  apparatus  as  it  thinks  fit  for  the  purpose  of scertaining the  amount of energy supplied, under the second proviso of the said sub-section, the Board has an obligation to keep  also such  apparatus correct. mr. Gupta has further contended that  second proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 26 also  requires that  the provisions  of sub-sections (4), (5) and  (6) shall  mutatis mutandis  also apply to the said additional apparatus  as though it was the meter referred to under sub-section (1).  in other words, if the Board has any doubt about  the correctness of such other apparatus then it becomes the  duty of the Board to make a formal reference of the dispute  to the  Electrical Inspector  after giving  the consumer not  less than  seven days’ notice of its intention to do so.  Any correctness undertaken otherwide would not be a reference  under Sub-section  (6) of Section 26 of the Act and in  that event, as declared by the saving clause in sub- section (6)  of Section  26  of  the  Electricity  Act,  the register of the meter shall alone be conclusive proof of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer.      Mr. Gupta has also contended that the Electricity Board cannot also  unilaterally and without notive add any further compliant wih regard to any other apparatus by merely making some  mention  of  it  in  a  letter  forming  part  of  the correspondence taking  pace in  connection  with  a  validly referred dispute relatin, to teh meter.  Much less can it do so  by  resorting  to  such  methods  in  the  course  of  a correspondence taking  place under  a reference  made by the consumer.      It has  also been  contended  by  Mr.  Gupta  that  any attempt at  inviting the  Electrical  inspector  who  is  in seisin of the original dispute relaing to the meter, to also decide  the   question  of   correctness  of  an  additional apparatus midstream  and that too without any notice and the copy of  the complaint  being given to the consumer would be ab initio  illegal and  void and  the Electrical Inspector’s decision upon  the matter,  once again without ensuring that notice and  copy of  the complaint has been furnished to the consumer,  would   only  further  compoiund  the  breach  of principles of natural justice and fair play.      According    to    Mr.    Gupta,    any    controversy, correspondence, opinion,  adjudication etc.  apearing on the record of  the Board  or of  the Electrical Inspector at any point of  time with  regard to the correctness either of the meter  or  of  any  other  apparatus  shall  deserve  to  be disregarded and  ignored by  a court  of law if the same has not  taken   place  and   trasnpired  in   accordance   with theprocedural requirements  of sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Electricity Act.      Mr. Gupta  has very  seriously contended that after the amendment of  Section 26,  the legal position is that when a dispute is  raised either  by consumer  or by licensee about the correctness  of the  meter installed  at the premises of the consumer,  such dspute is got to be rexolved by making a reference to  the  Electrical  Inspector.    The  Electrical Inspector after  amendment of  Section 26 of the Electricity Act, has been authorised to make estimate of the electricity consumed by  the consumer  upon a finding that the installed meter was defective only for a period of six months prior to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 21  

the date  of reference  of the  dispute  to  the  Electrical Inspector.   For any  other period beyond that period of six months, the reading on the basis of the installed meter must form the  basis  of  raising  the  bills.    It  is  neither permissible  under   the  scheme   of  Section   26  of  the Electricity Act  nor  it  can  be  presumed  that  from  any particular point  of time,  the original  installed  correct meter had gone wrong so that revised bills can be drawn from such point  of time.   Since it was the duty of the licensee namely the  Electricity Board to keep the meter installed at the consumer’s  premises in a correct position for which the licensee had  the right  of access  in the  premises of  the consumer, on  the failure of the licensee to check the meter installed at  the premises  of  the  consumer  and  to  make reference to  the Electrical  Inspector whenever  any  dbout arises about  the correctness  of the  meter  installed  and getting   appropriate   adjudication   by   the   Electrical Inspector, the  licensee cannot  be permitted  to raise  any revsed bills  beyond a period of six months from the date of reference of  the dispute to the Electrical Inspector on the basis of any meter subsequently installed at the premises of the consumer  after the  finding of the Electrical Inspector that the earlier meter installed was defective.      Mr. Gupta  has  subitted  that  in  the  instant  case, attempt has  been made  by the  Electricity Board  to  raise revised bills  on the basis of the check meter exceeding the period of  six months  from the  date of  reference  of  the dispute. MR.  Gupta has  contended that once on a reference, the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter installed at  the premises of the consumer is defective, the legislature, in  its wisdom, has given the Inspector to make an estimate  of the  amount of  electricity consumed  for  a period of  only six  months prior  to the date of reference. The estimate  made by the Electrical Inspector would be held to be  correct index  of consumption  of the electricity for the said  statutory period  of six  months  because  of  the statutory presumption  of incorrectness  of the  meter  upto that period.   But beyond the said period of six months, the licensee is  not permitted  to raise  any dispute  about the incorrectness of  the bills raised and the licensee can only raise bills  on the  basis of  the installed  meter for  all earlier period  beyond the  said  statutory  period  of  six months.      Mr. Gupta  has submitted  that unfotunately,  the  High Court has  failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 26 of the  Electricity Act  and by  the impugned order the High Court has  allowed the respondent Electricity Board to raise bills for the period exceeding the said six months for which estimated amount  of electricity  consumed was determined by the Electrical  Inspector on the basis of the reading of the meters installed  at the  premises of  the appellant.   Such order of  the High  Cort is  clearly illegal and against the provisions of  Section 26  f the Electricity Act and thus it cannot be sustained.      So far  as the  interim order  passed on March 10, 1992 since assailed  in one of the appeals is concerned, the High Court according  to Mr.  Gupta, has  passed the  said  order without   appreciating   that   such   order   was   without jurisdiction and  outside the  scope and  ambit of  the last Writ  Petition   filed  by  the  appellant  challenging  the validity of  the bill  for the  month of  January 1992 only. Mr. Gupta  has submitted  that the impugned interim order of March 10,  1992 passed  on the  last  Writ  Peition  of  the appellant is manifesly unjust, improper and illegal.      Mr. B.  Sen, learned  senior counsel  appearing for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 21  

U.P. State  Electricity Board  has, however,  submitted that the Board  has the  power to  install a  check meter for the purpose of  checking the  functioning of the installed meter and to regularise the bills on the basis of check meter.  He has also  submitted that since the licensee has the power to alter the  meter if  the installed meter is found defective, there is  no difficulty  in treating  the check meter as the regular meter  installed in  lieu  of  the  original  meter. Therefore, the  bills drawn  on the basis of the check meter cannot be  held to  be illegal.   On  the question  of  true construction of  Section 26  (6) of the Electricity Act, Mr. Sen has  submitted that sub-section (6) of Section 26 should be read  in the  light of  amended sub-section  and when  so read, it  would be  seen that  the words  ’not exceeding six months’ have  been added  by amending  Act 32  of 1959.  The result of  the amendement  is not  that  any  claim  of  the licensee in  respect of  correct meter is restricted only to the amount  of energy  supplied to  the  consumer  during  a period not exceeding six months.  Mr. Sen has submitted that the words  save as aforesaid the register of the meter shall in the  absence of  fraud be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity  means that  except in  cases where  there is  a determination by  the Electrical Insepctor that the meter is not correct,  the register  of the meter is conclusive proof of the  amount  or  quantity.    After  the  amendment,  the Electrical Inspector’s  jurisdiction to  estimate the amount of energy  supplied to the consumer from the incorrect meter is restricted  to a  period not  exceeding six  months.   In other words,  the  Electrical  Inspector’s  jurisdiction  to estimate the  amount of  energy is  restricted upto  a  time period.   This does  not mean  that the meter is approved as correct for any period anterior to six months.      Mr. Sen has also submitted that the distinction must be drawn between  the estimating  or quantifying  the amount of energy and  the duration  of the incorrectness of the meter. The former does not affect the latter.  Section 26(6) is not a section  which bars  the latter claim either by limitation or otherwise.   Consequently,  it is open to th elicensee to make a  claim on  the basis  of the  value of  incorrectness found by  the Electrical  Inspector in  respect of  a period anterior to  the maximum  six months  period for  which  the Electrical Inspector can estimate the amount of supply.      MR. Sen  has, however,  submitted that the claim of the licensee about  the quantum  of electricity  consumed is not statutorily conclusive  and therefore,  such  claim  may  be subject to contest if any to be made by the consumer.      Mr. Sen  has submitted that the above interpretation is only fair  and just  and the  said interpretation harmonises the lessening  of the burden on the Electrical Inspector for which the amendment was effect in sub-section (6) of Section 26 and  also preserves  the claim of the licensee which is a public undertaking  and just  claim should not be allowed to be abandoned or defeated.  Mr. Sen has submitted that it was open to  the licensee  to make revised bills for teh quantum of electricity  consumed by  the consumer  by correcting the bills to  the extent  of error  in recording as indicated by the Electrical  Inspector.  Therefore, the impugned decision of the High Court must be sustained.      Mr. Sen  has also submitted that although the last Writ Petition was  moved for  assailing the  bill  raised  for  a particular month  but the  contention  raised  in  the  Writ Petition is  the same,  namely, excepting  the  ’six  months period’  for   which  the   estimate  was  prepared  by  the Electrical Inspector,  for all  other periods  prior to such estimation, must be covered by the readings in the installed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 21  

meter even  if the  installed meter  has been  found  to  be defective and  no revised  bill can be drawn and payment can be claimed  on the  basis of  revised bills  for any  period exceeding six  months.   Since  much  contention  cannot  be accepted and the High Court has already answered against the appellant in  disposing of the earlier three writ petitions, the impugned  interim  direction  give  by  the  High  Court appears to  be just and proper and no interference is called for against the judgment of the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.  Mr. Sen has, therefore, submitted that these appeals should be dismissed.      Mr. T.R.  Andherujina, learned  Solicitor General,  has appeared for  the Municipal  Corporation fo  Greater Bombay, the appellant  in Civil  Appeal Nos.  2538 of  195 and Civil Appeal No.  1571 of  1987.  Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 1985 is directed against  the judgment dated April 4, 1985 passed by the Division  Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing Appeal No. 173  of 1979  preferred by  the respondent Bharat Barrel Drum Manufacturing  Company Limited  assailing the  order of dismissal of  the Writ  Petition of the said respondent by a Single Judge  of the  High Court,  Civil Appeal  No. 1571 of directed against  Order dated  July 1,  1987 passed  by  the Division Bench  of the  Bombay High Court in O.S. Appeal No. 890 of  1983 arising  from Misc.  Petition No. 1662 of 1979. The impugned  judgment of  the Bombay   High  Court in  O.S. Appeal No.890 of 1983 has been passed following the decision of the  Division Bench  of the Bombay High Court dated April 4, 1985 in Bharat Barrel Drum Manufacturing Company’s case.      Mr. Solicitor  General has  submitted  that  in  Bharat Barrel’s case,  the appellant checked the correctness of all meters of multiplying the constant and of actual connections of CT  operated meters  and an  additional check  meter  was installed and  on comparison  of  the  two  meters,  it  was revealed that  due to  defective connections,  the  original meter was  registering 76.6%  less than  of its  actual use. Therefore, the  revised bills  of 76.6%  of energy  consumed from June 1, 1963 amounting to Rs. 2,28,750.70 was served on the respondent company.  The respondent disputed the revised bills and  referred the  dispute to the Electrical Inspector under Section  26(6) of the Electricity Act.  The respondent company moved  a Misc Petition No. 376 of 1973 in the Bombay High Court, on June 20, 1973, and a consent order was passed in the  said petition  where the  appellant  agrred  not  to disconnect the  electric supply for non-payment of the amoun demanded during  the pendency  of the reference. On July 10, 1973, the  Electrical Inspector  found  that  the  meter  in question was recording 71.9% slow reading and such error was beyond the  prescribed  limit.    The  appellant  thereafter revised its  bills in  the  light  of  th  decision  of  the Electical Inspector  and reduced  the  claim  and  sent  the corrected revised  Bills for a sum of Rs. 1,68,402.90 to the respondent-Company.   Such revised bill was also assailed by the respondent-Company before the Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition  No.1148   of  1973.    The  learned  Single  Judge dismissed the  said petition  by upholding  the claim of the respondent-appellant.   Thereafter, the respondent preferred the said  Appeal No.  173 of  1979 and  such appeal has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated April 4, 1985.      By the  impugned judgment, the High Court has held that once the  dispute is  referred under  Section 26(6)  of  the Electricity Act,  the licensee  is entitled  to pay only the charges payable  as per recording by the meter installed and such further  amount as  may be held due for a period of six months by the Electrical Inspector.  The High Court has also held that  any amount demanded by the licensee on the ground

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 21  

that the  meter ceased  to be  correct for a period for more than six  months cannot  be said to be ’due’ for the purpose of Section  24(1) of the Act and that the power to discnnect vested in  the licensee under Section 24 cannot be exercised for non-payment  of such  amount.   The High  Court has also held that the licensee cannot revise its bills for more than six months immediately proceeding the demand.  similar claim by presenting  revised bills  on account  of  error  due  to incorrect meter  reading has  also been rejected in the case of M/s  Eagle Theatre  by relying  on the judgment passed in Bharat Barrel Drum Manufacturing Company’s case.      The  learned   Solicitor  General  has  submitted  that Section 24(1)  of the  Electricity Act empowers the licensee to cut the supply where a consumer neglects to pay charge of Electricity due  from him after giving seven days’ notice to the consumer  in writing.  Where ther is a dispute as to the correctness of  the meter,  sub-section (2)  of  Section  24 requires  that   licensee  shall   not  exercise  powers  of disconnection until  the Inspector  has given  his decision. Where the  Inspector has  given his  decision estimating the amount of  energy supplied  to the  consumer  under  Section 26(6) during  such time  not exceeding  six  months  and  if consumer does not pay after such a determination, it will be open for  the licensee  to issue  a notice  of disconnection under Section  24(1) of  the Act.  Mr. Solicitor General has also submitted  that in  respect of the period exceeding six months, the  licensee may make a demand from the consumer on the basis  of value of incorrectness of the meter determined by the  Electrical Inspector.  The licensee may issue such a notice without prejudive to his right to recover such charge by suit.   Mr.  Solicitor General  has submitted that it is, therefore  not   correct  that   a  licensee  can  under  no circumstances avail  of the  powers of  disconnection  under Section 24(1)  on the  score of  non-payment of  the revised bills relating  to a period exceeding six months as referred to in  Section 26(6).   Since  the appellant  can raise  the revised  bills  on  account  of  incorrect  reading  in  the installed meter  for some  defects either in the meter or in connection to the meter, the impugned decision of the Bombay High Court  can not  be sustained and the same should be set aside by allowing the appeals.      Mr.  Gupta   in  reply   has,  however,   dispute   the submissions made  by Mr.Sen  and by  the  learned  Solicitor General.  Mr. Gupta has contended that there is no scope for any assumption that there is in the licensee a right to make claims for  the amount of energy supplied to a consumer even outside the provisions of SEction 26(1) and Section 26(6) of the Act.  Mr. Gupta  has submitted  that the  assumption  of claims outside  Section 26(1)  and (6) is patently wrong and incorrect.   According to  Mr. Gupta,  such  assumption  and consequential  claim   do  not   reflect  true  and  correct intention of the legislature but tends to destroy and defeat the  same  because  the  real  purpose  and  scheme  of  the legislature hae  been to  put an  end of  such claims.   Mr. Gupta has submitted that the interpretation of Section 26(6) as suggested  by Mr.  Sen and  the learned Solicitor General will  lead   to  serious   conflicts  and  difficulties  and anomalies of  interpretation and  it also leads to protected litigations and  vexatious proceedings  resulting  in  grave hardship and  misery  to  all  concerned.    Mr.  Gupta  has submitted  that  the  Court  will  keep  in  mind  that  the Parliament could not have intended such harsh and unsettling consequences.   For such  contention, Mr. Gupta has referred to a  decision of  this Court  in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company Vs. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. (198 (1) SCC 147).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 21  

    Mr. Gupta has also submitted that it is well settled in law that  express language is necessary whenever any charges or dues  are required  to be  paid  or  any  new  rights  or obligations  are   create  between   parties.     For   such contention, reference has been made to Craies on Status Law, (7th Edition,  pp. 112 to 117). Mr. Gupta has also contended that ’conclusive  proof clause  in Section 26(6) is designed to govern  only such  period during which the meter has been ’de jure’  to be  presumed to  be correct.   Mr.  Gupta  has submitted that such provision has been made to govern a case where the  inspector holds  the meter to be incorrect but is not able  to identify  the entire period of incorrectness or not able  for some  other  reason  to  estimate  the  energy supplied for  the  entire  period  of  incorrectness.    The conclusive proof  clause was  meant to legislatively resolve and settle  the  claims  of  the  licensee  during  such  an uncovered or unestimated periof of adjudiated incorrectness.      Mr. Gupta  has submitted that the said conclusive proof clause was provided by the legislature purposely as a matter of   legislative   policy   to   facilitate   administrative expediency and  public convenience.    Mr.  Gupta  has  also contended that  the Court  will accept  that  interpretation which  assigns  a  special  role  and  significance  to  the ’conclusive proog clause in the scheme of Section 26 (6) and reject any  interpretation which  would  render  it  otiose, superfluous and  redundant. In  support of  this contention, Mr. Gupta  has relied  on the decision of this Court in J.K. Cotton (1961  (3) SCR  193) and  Radhey Shyam  (1989 (1) SCC 591).   The  Electrical  Inspecto  on  a  reference  raising disputeabout the  correctness of  the meter,  is the  chosen Judge and  the best  Judge appointed  by the  Legislature to resolve the  dispute. Mr.  Gupta has submitted that the true object of  amendment of Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Electricity Act  was to  eliminate retrospective demand. Mr. Gupta has  submitted that six months’ ceiling was imposed by the Parliament  on the  power of  the Inspector  to form  an estimae of the amount of energy supplied for various reasons and not  merely because  of the fact that he may not be able to decide  the period  of incorrectness.   According  to Mr. Gupta, the true object and purpose of the six months’ceiling was  to   ensure  that  the  consumer  was  not  vexed  with retrospective demands  for past  periods and  that too  on a rough and ready esimae basis.      Mr. Gupta has also submitted that under Section 26 (6), the Parliament  has deliberately chosen to deny and disallow the alleged  lcaims of  the licensee  beyond  a  period  six months and  it is not a case of gap or ’casus omissus’.  Mr. Gupta has  submitted that  if the  Court in the present case decides to  acknowledge the  existence of the alleged claims of licensee  outside the  six months’ limit, it would amount not only  to legislating but legislating in the teeth of the provision made  by the  Parliament in  Section 26. Mr. Gupta has submitted  that the  licensee does  not have  any  extra claim over  and above  the  maximum  period  of  six  months provided under  Section 26  (6).   Such  position  has  been accepted  in  various  judgments  by  several  High  Courts. Therefore, it  must be  held that  the consistent and widely accepted judicial  interpretation of  Section 26(6) does not permit any  claim beyond the said period of six months.  The Parliament has  never made  any attempt  of amending Section 26(6) so  as to  resolve it  of the judicial interpretation. The silence  on  the  part  of  the  Parliament,  therefore, indicates that  the interpretation  of Section 26(6) by High Courts over  long stretch  of period  has rightly  the  true intention of the Parliament which, therefore, deserves to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 21  

accepted by this Court.      Mr. Gupta  has lastly submitted that sub-section (6) of Section 26  is capable  of being interpreted differently and should be  interpreted  differently  for  the  licensee  and consumer who  are not similarly circumstanced.  The Consumer is, at  all times, at the mercy of the licensee on the point that consumer  has no  option in the matter of inspection of meters and  checking and  repairing the  same. Mr. Gupta has further submitted  that sub section (6) of Section 26 has to be interpreted  in the light of all other connected limbs of the statute  and  with  reference  to  specific  context  in question.   It is  appears to  the Court  that on account of short sightedness  of the  legislative draftsman who drafted the six  months’  rule  in  the  1959  amendment,  unmerited prejudice and  hardship have  been caused  to the consumers, the judicial  wing may  have to depend on its own creativity so that  hardship is not meted out to the consumers. In this connection, Mr.  Gupta has  relied on  the decision  of this Cout  in   Punjab  Land   Development   and   Reconstruction Coperation Ltd. Vs. P.O. (1990 (3) SCC 682 para 70). Mr.  Gupta  has,  therefore,  submitted  that  the  impugned decision of the Allahabad High Court should be set aside and the said  three writ  peritions should  be allowed  and  the impugned interim  direction passed in the last Writ Petition pending before the Allahabad High Court should be set aside. Similarly the decisions of the Bombay High Court impugned in the  other  appeals  should  be  upheld  by  dismissing  the appeals.      After giving  our careful  considearation to  the facts and circumstances  of the  cases in  these appeals  and  the submissions made  by Mr. Gupta, Mr. Sen and MR. Andherujina, and learned Solicitor General, it appears to us that Section 20 of  the Electricity  Act authorises the licensee to enter the premises  of the  consumer to  remove fittings and otehr apparatus installed  by the  licensee.   Clause (a)  of sub- section (1)  of Section  20 authorises the licensee to enter the premises  of  the  consumer  for  ’inspecting,  testing, repairing or  altering the supplylines, meters, fittings and apparatus  for   the  supply  of  energy  belonging  to  the licensee.   The licenses,  therefore, can not only enter the premises of  the consumer  for insepcting,  testing etc. but the  licensee   also  can  alter  the  meter  whenever  such alteraction is  needed. Such power under Section 20 does not depend on  the adjudication  of correctness of the meter and other apparatus  by the  Electrical Inspector on a reference under Section  26(6) of the Electricity Act.  But such power flows from the statutory duties and function of the licensee to maintain  the correct  meter for recording the quantum of electricity supplied  to the  consumer.  Such duty to ensure maintenance of correct meter in the premises of the consumer has been indicated in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 26.   The  power of removing the meter under Section 20, however,  is circumscribed by the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 26 only when the dispute as to the functng of the meter  has been  referred to  teh  Electrical  Inspector under Sub  section  (6)  of  Section  26.    A  licensee  is authorised under  sub-section (7) of Section 26 to place, in addition to  the meter installed in the premises of consumer as referred to in Sub-Section (1) of Section 26, other meter or apparatus  as the  licensee deem  fit for  the purpose of recording or regulating the amount of energy supplied to the consumer.   Such power also does not depend on the existence of any dispute as to the correctness of the meter installed.      Check meter  is usually  installed for  the purpose  of checking  and  ascertaining  theproper  functioning  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 21  

installed meter  but there  is no legal bar for treating the check meter  as an  altered meter  in  place  of  the  meter installed earlier  when on  checking the  meter the licensee has found  it to be defective.  Such power of installing the meter, replacing  it by another mete ris also independent of existence of  any  dispute  between  the  consumer  and  the licensee.      The   expression   ’check   meter’   has   no   special significance or  legal incidence  for which  there is  a bar that check  meter cannot  be treated  as an altered meter if the licensee  intends to  replace the defective meter by the check meter.  It will be open to the Electrical Inspector to ascertain the  correctness of the check meter along with the disputed meter  when dispute is referred for adjudication by the Electrical  Inspector and  the licensee  found its  case with reference  to check  meter.   Prior to the amendment of Section 26(6)  of Electricity  Act, the Electrical Inspector or the  competent person  specially appointed  by the  State Government in  this behalf,  had a  statutory duty  to first determine whetehr  the meter  in question  was defective and thereafter to  estimate  the  quantity  of  the  electricity consumed during such time as the meter in the opinion of the Electrical Inspector or the competent person ’shall not have been correct’.   After  the amendment  of sub-section (6) of Sectio 26,  the Electical  Inspector is  the only  statutory authority to decide the dispute about the correctness of the meter, if  such dispute  is raised by either of the parties. If the  Electrical Inspector  on a  reference comes  to  the finding that  the meer  has ceased  to be  correct, the said Inspector has  a statutory  duty to  estimate the  amount of energy  supplied   to  the  consumer  or  electrical  energy contained in  the supply  during such time not exceeding six months as  the meter  shall not,  in  the  opinion  of  such Inspector, have been correct.’                       (emphasis added)      From the legislative change effected in sub-section (6) of Section  26, it is evident that prior to the amendment of sub-section (6),  upon  a  determination  that  the  meterin question was  defective, the  Electrical  Inspector  or  the competent person  had a  statutory duty  to also estimte the amount of energy supplied for the entire period during which in the  opinion of  the  said  Inspector  or  the  competent person, the  installed meter  ’shall not have been correct’. But after  the amendment,  on a  finding that  the meter  in question has  ceased to be correct, the Electrical Inspector has been  relieved of  the statutory  duty to  estimate  the total quantity  of energy  supplied to  the consumer for the entire period  during which  the meter in the opinion of the Inspector shall  not have  been correct.   But the Inspector has the  statutory duty to estimate the supply of energy for a limited  period referred to under Sub-section (6), namely, ’during such time not exceeding six months’.      The  pint   of  time   with  reference   to  which  the electricity consumed  by the  consumer is to be estimated by the Electical  Inspector for  such period  not exceeding six months’ has  not been  specifically indicated  insub-section (6) of  Section 26.   The  expression   ’during  such  time’ appearing in  sub-section (6)  of Section  26 is  capable of different construction, namely, period between      i) date  of  dispute  and  date  of      reference      ii) date  of dispute  and  date  of      inspection      iii) date  of reference and date of      adjudication

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 21  

    iv) date  of dispute  and  date  of      adjudication      It does  not require  any imagination  to hold that the dispute when  raised  either  by  the  consumer  or  by  the licensee and  reference to Electrical Inspector is made, the Inspector is  expected to consume some time for entering the reference of  dispute, making  inspection of  the  meter  in question and  after taking  such technial  test  as  may  be necessary to  finally  adjudicate  the  dispute  as  to  the correctness of the meter.  Unless the adjudication as to the proper functioning  of the  meter is  made, the  question of estimating the  supply  of  electricity  for  the  statutory period during  which such meter shall not have been correct, will not  arise.  In our view, taking into consideration the time  lag   inherent  between   raising   of   dispute   and adjudication of  such dispute,  the expression  ’during such time’ in  sub section  (6) of Section 26 only means the time during which  the dispute  is raised  for reference  and the dispute is  finally adjudicated.   Hence,  the  estimate  of supply of  energy by the Inspector is to be made for a priod not exceeding  six months  prior to  the date of raising the dispute for  reference to  the Electrical  Inspector.    The expression ’not  exceeding six  months’ indicates  that  the Electrical Inspector even when comes to the finding that the meter in  question has  ceased to be correct, is ot required in all  cases to make estimate of consumption of electricity for a  period upto  six months  prior to  the raising of the dispute for  reference to  the Electrical  Inspector.   In a given case,  it may  so happen that the Electrical Inspector may come  to the finding that the meter ceased to be correct from a  particular date which is not upto six months earlier to the  date of  raising the dispute for reference.  In such case,  the   estimate  to  be  prepared  by  the  Electrical Inspector may  not go  upt six  months prior  to the date of raising the  dispute for  reference but  such estimate  will only cover  the period  prior to  raising the dispute during which, accroding  to the Electrical Inspector, the meter had ceased to be correct.      The question  which, however,  arises for  decision  in these appeals  is that  although estimation by the Inspector may be  limited to the statutoy period under Sub-section (6) of Section  26, but  if on  the basis  of the finding of the Electrical Inspector  it is  possible to hold that the meter in question  had ceased  to be  correct from  the date  even prior to  six months  from the  date of raising the dispute, whether the licensee is competent to raise revised bills for consumption of  Electricity by the consumer for such earlier period and consequentially cut the supply of electricity for non payment  of revised bills.  Mr. Gupta has contended that within the  integrated scheme  of the  Electricity Act,  the licensee being  burdened  with  the  duty  to  maintain  the correct meer  installed by  it and coupled with the power to inspect and check the functioning of such meter from time to time cannot  be permitted to raise any revised bill contrary to the  reading by  the installed meter beyond the period of ’six months’ as referred to in sub-section (6) of Section 26 i.e. maximum  period of  six months  prior to  the  date  of raising the dispute.  If the licensee has failed to properly check the  functioning of  the installed  meter and  has not changed the  alleged faulty  meter or has not raised dispute for reference  to the  Electrical  Inspector,  the  licensee cannot but  suffer for  its inaction under the scheme of the Indian Electricity Act.      Both Mr. Sen and Mr. Andherujina, the learned Solicitor General,  have   disputed  such   contentionof  Mr.   Gupta.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 21  

According to  Mr. Sen and Mr. Ahdherujina sub-section (6) of section 26  does not  deny the  licensee to claim payment on account of  consumption of  electricity beyond the statutory period for  which no  estimation by the Electrical Inspector has to  be made,  if it is established that the meter ceased to be correct even prior to the said statutory period of six months.      Sub-section (1)  of Section  26 provides  that  in  the absence of  any agreement  to the  countrary, the  mount  of energy supplied  to a  consumer  or  the  electric  quantity contained in  the supply, shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter.   Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 26 provide for  the inter  se rights and futies of the consumer and the  licesee to  keep  the  meter  and  other  apparatus necessary for  recording the  consumption of  electricity by the consumer  in good  condition and  for such  purpose  the licensee has  been clothed  with  the  power  to  enter  the premises of  the consumer for testing, checking, maintaining ect the  meter and  other apparatus  and for  repairing  and altering the same if needed.  Explanation to sub-section (7) of Section  26 provides  that ’a meter shall be deemed to be ’correct’ if  it registers  the amount of energy supplied or the electrical  quantity contained  in the supply within the prescribed limits of error and a maximum demand indicator or other appartatus  referred to  in sub-section  (7) shall  be deemed to  be correct if it complies with such conditions as may be  prescribed in  the case  of any  indicator of  other apparatus."      Sub-section (6)  of Section 26 provides that in case of any difference  or dispute  as to whetehr any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be  decided   upon  the  application  of  either  party,  by Electrical Inspector.  It also provides that on finding that meter ceased  to be correct, the Electrical Inspector has to make an  estimate of  consumption of  electricity during the statutory period  as  referred  to  in  sub-section  (6)  of Section  26.    What  is  the  statutory  period  for  which estimation is  to be  made by  the Electrical  Inspector has already been  indicated.  Sub-section (6) of Section 26 also provides that  save  as  aforesaid,  namely,  estimation  of consumption of  electricity by  the Electrical Inspector for the statory period, "the register of the meter shall, in the absence of  fraud, be  conclusive proof  of such  amount  or quantity."                       (emphasis added)      On a conjoint reading of various sub-section of Section 26 of the Electricity Act, it is evident that consumption of electricity or  electrical quantity  in the supply, shall be ascertained by  means of  a correct  meter and the meter and other apparatus for recording the consumption of electricity by a  consumer will be deemed to be correct if the recording is within  the permissible limit of error as prescribed.  If a dispute  as to  the correctness  of the meter is raised by any party for reference, such dispute can be decided only by the Electrical  Inspector and  both  the  licensee  and  the consumer has  to accept the stimate of supply of electricity to the  consumer as  may be  determined  by  the  Electrical Inspector for  the statutory  period  referred  to  in  sub- section (6) of Section 26.      Although the  licensee is  clothed with  the  power  to maintain a  correct meter  installedt the  premises  of  the consumer and  for such purpose can enter the premises of the consumer and the licensee can also repair or alter the meter and  other  electrical  apparantus  if  found  defective  on checking or  testing by  the licensee, but if the dispute as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 21  

to the  correct status  of the  meter  or  otehr  electrical apparatus is  raised by  the licensee  or by the consumer by making reference  to the  Electrical Inspector under-section (6) of  Section 26, then such dispute can be determined only by the  Electrical Inspector  and  the  meter  or  apparatus cannot also be changed by the licensee unless the dispute is resolved by  the Electrical Inspector. If there is a dispute as to  the proper functioning of the merer or check meter or other electrical apparatus unders sub-section (6) of Section 26, the  Electrical Inspector  upon entering  the  reference would determine  the dispute as to the proper functioning of the meter  and other  electrical apparatus  and in the event the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter ceased to  be correct, he is to determine the quantum of the electricity consumed during the statutory period referred to in sub-section  (6) but for any other period anterior to the statutory period, the legislature, in no uncertain term, has indicated in  the latter  part of sub-section (6) of Section 26 that  reading registered  in the  disputed meter will not only be  presumed to  be correct  but such  reading shall be conclusive proof  of the quantity of electricity consumed or the amount  of electricity supplied to the consumer provided no fraud has been practised by the consumer. In appreciating the intention of the legislature, the provision for treating the recording  of the  disputed meter  to be  the conclusive proof of  the amount of quantity supplied to the consumer in the absence  of fraud where a dispute is raised by either of the party  about the  functioning of  the meter,  cannot  be overlooked.   Sub section  (6)  has  been  amended  and  the legislature has introduced a conscious departure by deleting the requirement  of assessing  the quantity  of  electricity consumed for  the entire  period during which the Electrical Inspector or the competent authority was of the opinion that the meter  had ceased  to be  correct.    In  our  view,  by limiting the  period  for  estimation  to  be  made  by  the Electrical Inspector by the amendment of sub-section (6) and further providing  that for  the  anterior  period,  in  the absence of  fraud,  the  register  of  the  meter  shall  be conclusive proof  of the  supply of  the electricity  it  is quite evident  that even if it transpires that the installed meter ceased  to be correct, then for the period anterior to the statutory  period for  which the estimation is not to be mae by  the Electrical  Inspector, the register of teh meter about the  consumption of  the electricity  supplied to  the consumer shall  be binding  between the  parties by treating such recording as conclusive proof of the consumption in the absence of  any fraud  practised by  the consumer.   By  the amendment of  sub-section (6)  the Electrical  Inspector has been purposely  obsolved from  the duty  to determine  as to from which  point of  time beyond the said statutory period, the meter  had cease  to function  so taht  for such  entire entire period,  the estimation  of the supply of electricity need not  be made.  Such amendment of sub-section (60, n our view, only  means that  beyond the  statutory period, in the event of  dispute between  the  parties  as  to  the  proper functioning of the meter and otehr electrical apparatus, the consumer has liability to pay the estimated amount indicated by the  Electrical Inspector  limiting the estimate upto the statutory period  and not  beyond that  but  for  the  other anterior period the consumer is required to pay according to the consumption  of electricity  registered in  the disputed meter provided  there is  no fraud practised by the consumer because dispute  of such  anterior period remains unresolved by the change introduced by the amendment.      Such legislative change by the amendment of sub-section

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 21  

6 of  Section 26, in our view, has been introduced to set at rest any dispute between the licensee and the consumer about the actual consumption of the quantity of electricity by the consumer where  no fraud  has been practised by the consumer for  all   other  period  anterior  to  statory  period  for estimation.   There is  good  reason  for  such  legislative change because is may not be possible to precisely determine exactly from  which point  of time  the meter  ceased to  be correct.   The scheme  under Electricity Act clearly reveals that a  correct meter  is to  be installed  and such correct meter is to be maintained by the licensee in the premises of the consumer  so that  consumptionof electricity is computed on the  basis of  reading in  the meter.   The  scheme  also reveals that  unilateral decision  of either  of the parties about the correct status of the meter is not be  accepted by the other  party if  the other  party raises objection as to the status  of the  meter.   Whenever both  parties  do  not accept a meter to be correct and the dispute is raised, such dispute is  got to  be resolved  by referring to a statutory authority  under   Section  26(6),  namely,  the  Electrical Inspectr.   Within the integrated scheme under Section 26 of the Electricity  Act, it  is not  possible that  even though dispute is  raised about  the mal  functioning of  the meter such dispute  will be  treated as statutorily resolved for a limited period  in accordance  with the  amended sub-section (6)of Section 26 but for other period  anterior to the same, the dispute will remain unresolved and claim of the licensee be open  to be challenged.  Therefore, simply on the finding that mere  had  ceased  to  be  correct  by  the  Electrical Inspector on  entering the  reference a  licensee may not be justified in  contending that  a particular meter had ceased to be  correct from  a particular  point of time even though the licensee,  despite its  statutory duty  to maintain  the correct meter by repairing or rectifying the defective meter and  by  replacing  it  if  necessary  has  failed  to  take appropriate step.   Both  Mr Sen  and the  learned Solicitor General in  their fairness,  have submitted  that beyond the statutory period for which no estimation for the consumption of electricity  is to  be made  by the  Electrical Inspector attaching statutory  finality to  such estimation,  although the licensee is not precluded from raising revised claim for other period  anterior to the statutory period of estimation but such  claim  will  be  open  to  be  challenged  by  the consumer.   In our view, by the amendment of sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Legistature has intended to put an end of such contest  between the  licensee and the consumer and has set at  rest of  any dispute relating to any period anterior to the statutory period of estimation by providing that in a casee of  dispute as to functioning of meter, the reading in the meter  for the  period beyond  the period  of  statutory estimation, will be final.      As in  none of  these appeals, there is any alloegation that the  concerned consumer  had paractised  fraud  or  had tampered  with   the  emter  or  other  electrical  appartus provided for  recording the  supply of  electricity  to  the consumer, the  consumer will  be entitled  to the  statutory protection  of   correctness  of   the  recording   of   the consumption  or   supply  of  electricity  consumed  in  the meter/check meter  as conclusive  proof of  such  amount  of quantity of electricity consumed for all the period anterior to statutory  period of estiation under SEction 26(6) of the Act because  admittedly there  is dispute  as to  the proper functioning of  the meter  and check  meter installed at the premises of the consumer.      In the  result, Civil Appeal Nos. 2538 of 1985 and 1571

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 21  

of 1987  preferred by  the Municipal  Corporation of Greater Bombay and  Civil Appeal  No. 1255  of  1986  are  dismissed without any  order as to cost. Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of S.l.P.Nos.  5262-64 of  1992 are allowed by setting aside the common  judgment dated  February 19,  1992 passed by the Allahabad High  Court in  three Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos.  10379 of  1988, 16723  of 1988  and 126325 of 1990 and  also the interim order dated March 10, 1992 passed in the  Writ Petition  No. nil  field by  the appellant  M/s Belwal Spinning  Mills Ltd.  in the  Allahabad High Court on March 9,  1992.   As both  the original  meter and the check meter installed  by the  u.P. State Electricity Board in the premises of  the appellant  M/s Belwal  Spinning Mills  LTd. were found  to be  defective by the Electrical Inspector the appellant has  the liability to pay for the estimated amount as determined  by the  Electrical  Inspector  under  Section 26(6) of  the Electricity Act for the statutory period under Section 26(6)  but for the earlier period, the appellant has the liability  only to  pay on  the basis  of reading in the installed  meter/check   meter  in  view  of  the  statutory protection of conclusive proof of consumption of electricity for such  period on  the basis of reading in the meter.  The respondent U.P.  State Electricity  Board will  be precluded from raising  any demand contrary to the aforesaid liability of the  appellant and  consequently will  not be entitled to disconnect the  electricity in the premises of the appellant for non-payment  for the  consumption of electricity for any period earlier than the statutory period beyond the quantity registered by  the installed  meter.   It is,  however, made clear that  it will  be open  for the U.P. State Electricity Board to  raise bills  and demand  payments for  the  period subsequent to the statutory period and to take consequential action for  non pay  ment of  bills for  such period  on the basis of correct reading in the meter or meters in the light of the  finding of  the Electrical  Inspector until  any new meter is installed.  Civil Appeal arising from SLP Nos 5262- 64 of  1992 are accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.      Before we  part, we  may indicate   that  although  the licensee has  the obligation to keep the installed meter and other electrical  apparatus in proper condition by resorting to regular  checking and  testing, repairing  etc.  but  the feasibility of  constant checking,  repairing etc.  of large number of  consumers in  the present day set up may not be a practical proposition.   In  the teeth of sub-section (6) of Section 26  as amended,  it is  quite likely  that  in  many cases, the  licensee may  suffer serious  prejudice  in  not being able to realise from the consumers the revenue for the electricity  consumed   where  even   though  no  fraud  was practised by  the consumer,  the defect in the meter escaped attention of  the  employees  of  the  licensee  either  for genuine reasons  or in a designed manner thereby bringing an unfortunate situation  when the  licensee  can  recover  the estimated amount determined by the Electrical Inspector in a disputed case  limited only  to  the  statutory  period  but confining the  revenue for the entire anterior period, which may go  for years,  only on  the basis  of  reading  in  the defective meter.   Since after amendment of Section 26(6) of the Electricity  Act, the  position in  law is such, we feel that the  proper ligislative  amendmnt is desirable so as to protect  the   large  number   of  licensees  including  the Electricity Boards from suffering huge loss of revenus.