Supreme Court of India

BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC.versusU.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: 1997 INSC 564
Decided: 10 July 1997
Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Bench: G N RAY

Holding

The Electrical Inspector may estimate consumption only for a period not exceeding six months from the date the dispute is raised, and for all earlier periods the reading of the disputed meter is conclusive proof of consumption absent fraud, precluding the licensee from raising revised bills or disconnecting supply for those earlier periods.

Summary

Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. challenged demand notices issued by the U.P. State Electricity Board (the Board) on the basis of a check‑meter that the Board had installed after doubting the correctness of the original meter. The appellant sought a reference to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, which held both the original and the check‑meter to be incorrect and estimated the electricity supplied for a six‑month period. The Allahabad High Court had quashed the Board's demand notices and ordered payment based on the Inspector's estimate, but also allowed the Board to raise fresh bills for periods beyond the six‑month estimate. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme of Sections 20 and 26, interpreting the amendment to Section 26(6) to limit the Inspector’s estimation to a maximum of six months and to deem the meter’s register conclusive proof for earlier periods absent fraud. It held that the Board could not issue revised bills or disconnect supply for periods prior to the six‑month window, and that the appellant must pay only the amount estimated for the statutory period and the original meter’s reading for earlier periods. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders and allowed the appeals, directing the Board to adhere to the statutory limits.

Issues considered

The scope of the Electrical Inspector’s authority under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, particularly the meaning of "during such time not exceeding six months".
Whether the licensee (the Board) can raise revised bills and disconnect supply for periods preceding the six‑month statutory period after a meter is found defective.
The legal effect of a check‑meter installed by the licensee and whether it can replace the original meter for billing purposes.
The applicability of the conclusive‑proof clause in Section 26(6) to periods before the statutory estimation period.

Legislation cited

Electricity Act, 1910s. 20, s. 26(1), s. 26(4), s. 26(6), s. 26(7)
Indian Electricity Rules, 1956s. Rule 57

Subjects

electricity meterSection 26Electrical Inspectorcheck meterbilling disputesix months estimationconsumer protectionlicensee dutiesdisconnection

Judgment

BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC. A
v.
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

JULY 10, 1997

[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) B

Electlicity Law :

Electricity Act, 191()-Sectipn 26(6) as substituted by Act 32 of
(1~59}--Co1rectness of elecoicity meter in dispute-Reference of dispute to C
Electrical Inspector--Meter found to have ceased to be c01rect---Held, it was
Electiical inspector's. duty to estimate amount of energy supplied or electrical
qua11tity consumed i11 supply to consumer "d1bi11g such time, 11ot exceedi11g
six mo11ths"-Legislative amendme11t suggested,.'

Sectio11 26 (7) a11d 20-Cliecking of 1i1eter-Held, meter ca11 be i11stalled D
by the licensee in additio11 to the meter 'iiistalled in the premises of the
. co11suiner to check and asce1tai11 the proper fu11ctio11i11g of the i11stalled
111ete1~However this power would be. indepei1dent ofrefere11ce of any dispute
as to c01rect11ess of the i11stalled meter whereupo11 the Electrical l11Spector will
be the sole adjudicator of the dispute.
E
Section 26(4), 26(6) and 2o-Mai11te11a11ce of co"ect meter i11 the
premises of co11sume1~Licensee's duty-Held, it i11cludes alteration of the
meter under S. 2()-Also held, this power does 11ot depend upon adjudicatio11
of co"ectness of meter by Electrical Inspector 011 reference of dispute under
section 26(6)---Howevei; power of removi11g the meter u11der Section 20 is
circumsCTibed by the proviso to Section 26(4) only when dispute as to F
co1rect11ess .of the meter has bee11 refel1"ed to the l11spector under Section
26(6).

Words a11d Phrases :

Expressio11 "not exceedi11g six 111011ths"-Mea11i11g of i11 the Co11text of G
Sectio11 26(6) of the Electricity Act. ·

Respondent Board installed. a meter in the factory of the Appellant
and raised the biUs 'on the basis of the installed meter and the appellant
used to pay each bill, Notice was issued by the respondent raising doubt
about the correctness of the meter the contents of which was controverted H
197
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A by the appellant. Thereafter, respondent installed a check-meter the test-
ing fee for which was deposited by the appellant with a request to the
respondent to check the said check-meter. The respondent thereafter wrote
to appellant that bills could be revised for the period check-meter was
installed and raised demand and threatened to disconnect the electricity
B supply if the payments were not made. The said action of the respondent
was challenged by the appellant before the High Court. In the meantime,
appellant made application to the Electrical Inspector to check the cor-
rectness of the original as well as the check-meter, and submitted his
report under section 26(6) of the Act holding that both the original as well
as the check-meter were incorrect. The Electrical Inspector made an
C estimate of energy supplied to the appellant and authorised the respondent
to raise demand for a period of six months and directed to install the
original as well as the check-meter under section 26(1) of the Act.

The High Court quashed various demand notices issued to the
D appellant on the basis of the check-meter and directed payment on the
basis of estimate of the Electrical Inspector. By another order on an
another writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the action of the
respondent in respect of another bill and disconnecting the supply of
electricity in the factory of the appellant, the High Court directed the
appellant to deposit huge sum of money and on such deposit the respon-
E dent was to restore the connection. The High Court further directed the
respondent to issue fresh bill for a particular period and directed the
appellant to pay such bill within one month. Hence this appeal.

It was contended by the appellant that in the eye of law there can be
p only one "correct meter" in the case of any consumer. If the meter so
installed registers the amount of energy, the Board has no choice but to
accept it as correct and once it is 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 dispensed with on being decided that it is incorrect by the
Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act.
G
The Respondent Board that it had the power to instal a check-meter
for the purpose of checking the installed meter and to regularise the bill
on the basis of the check meter. It was also submitted that distinction must
be drawn between the estimating or quantifying amount of energy and the
H duration of the correctness of the meter and that the former did not affect
BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LID. v. U.P. STAIB ELCTRICITY BOARD 199

the latter. A

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. On a conjoint reading of the sub-sections of section 26 of
the Electricity Act, it is evident that consumption of electricity or electrical B
quantity in the supply, shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and
the meter and the 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. Although the licensee is
clothed with the power to maintain a correct meter installed at the premises
of the consumer and for such purpose can enter the premises of the con- C
sumer and the licensee can also repair or alter the meter and other electri-
cal apparatus it found defective on checking or testing by the licensee, but
if the dispute as to correct status of the meter or other electrical apparatus
is raised either by the licensee or by the consumer by making reference to
the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26, then such D
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 meter or check meter or other electrical apparatus under
sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Electrical Inspector upon entering the
reference would determine the dispute as to the proper functioning of the E
meter or 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). Both the licensee and the consumer have to
accept the estimate of supply of electricity to the consumer as may be
determined by the Electrical Inspector for the statutory period referred to
F
in sub-section (6) of Section 26. (226-C-H; 227-G-H)

2. After the amendment of sub-section (6) of section 26, on a finding
that the meter in question has ceased to be correct, the Electricity Inspec-
tor has been relieved of the statutory duty to estimate the total quantity of G
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 a statutory duty to estimate the supply of energy for a
limited period referred to in sub-section (6), namely, "during such time
not exceeding six months". The point of time with reference to which the H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A electricity consumed by the consumer is to be estimated by the Electrical
Inspector for such period not exceeding six months has not been specifl·
cally indicated in sub-section (6). Unless the adjudication as to the proper.
functioning of the meter is made, the question of estimating the supply of
electrieity for the statutory period during which such meter shall not have
B been correct, will not arise. Taking into consideration the time-lag inherent

l
between raising of dispute and adjudication of such dispute, the expression
"during such time" in sub-section (6) 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
C a period 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 not required
in all cases to make an estimate of consumption of electricity for a period
up to six months prior to the date of raising of the dispute for reference
D to the Electrical Inspector. In a given case, the Electrical Inspector may
come to the .finding that the meter ceased to be correct from a particular
date which is not up to six months earlier to the date raising the dispute
for reference. In so.ch case, the estimate to be prepared by the Electrical
Inspector will only cover the period prior to raising the dispute during
E which, according to the Electrical Inspector, the meter had ceased to be
correct. [223-CF; 224-B·F]

3.1 But for any other period anterior to the statutory period, the
legislature, in no uncertain terms, has indicated in the latter part of
p sub-section (6) of Section 26 that the 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 practiced
by the consumer. By the amendment in sub-section (6) the Electrical
Inspector has been purposely absolved from the duty to determine as to
G from which point of time beyond the said statutory period, the meter had
. ceased to function so that for such entire period, the estimation of the
supply of electricity need not be made. Such amendment of sub-section (6),
only means that beyond the statutory period, in the event of dispute
between the parties as to the proper functioning of the meter arid other
H electrieal apparatus, the consumer has liability to pay the estimated
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.STATEELCTRICITYBOARD 201

amount indicated by the Electrical Inspector limiting the estimate upto the A
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 practiced by
the consumer because dispute of such anterior period remains unresolved
by the change introduced by the amendment. [227-A-H]
B
3.2 Such legislative change by the amendment of sub- section (6) of
Section 26 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 practiced by the con-
sumer for all other periods anterior to statutory period for estimation. C
'fhere is good reason for such .legislative change because it may not be
possible to precisely determine exactly from which point of time the meter
ceased to be correct. Simply on the finding that the meter 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 has ceased to be
correct from a particular point of time even though the licensee, despite its D
statutory duty to maintain the correct meter by repairing or rectifying the
defective meter and by replacing it if necessary has failed to take the
appropriate step. [228-A-C; F]

4. Although the licensee has the obligation to keep the installed meter E
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 the meters of a 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 bei.ng able to realise from the consumers F
the revenue for the electricity consumed where even though no fraud was
. practised by the consumer, the defect .in the meter escaped the 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 G
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
Electridty Act, the position .in law is such, a proper legislative amendment is
desirable so as to protect the large number of licensee including the
Electricity Board from suffering huge loss of revenue. [230-C-F] H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
[1983] 1 SCC 147; J.K Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.,
[1961] 3 SCR 193; State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam, [1989] 1 SCC 591 and
Punjab Land Development Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, [1990] 3
sec 682, referred to.
B 5. A licensee is authoritised under sub-section (7) of Section 26, 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
may 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
C existence of any dispute as to the correctness of the meter installed. 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.
Such power of installing the meter, replacing it by another meter is also
independent of existence of any dispute between the consumer and the
D licensee. It will be open to the Electrical Inspector to ascertain the correct·
ness 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 the Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector or the competent per-
E son specially appointed by the State Government in this behalf, had a
statutory duty to first determine whether the meter in question was defec-
tive and thereafter to estimate the quantity of tne electricity consumed
during such time as the meter in the opinion of the Electricity Inspector or
the competent person "shall not have been correct". After the amendment
in Sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Electrical Inspector is the only
F statutory authority to decide the dispute about the correctness of the meter,
if such dispute is raised by either of the parties. [222-C-H; 223-A-B]

6. Section 20 of the Electricity Act authorises the licensee to enter the
premises of the consumer for inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the
G supply lines, meters, fittings and apparatus for the supply of energy belong·
ing to the licensee. Such power under Section 20 does not depend on the
adjudication of correctness of the meter and other apparatus by the Electri·
cal Inspector on a reference under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. But
such power flows from the statutory duties and functions of the licensee to.
maintain the correct meter for recording the quantum of electricity sup·
H plied to the consume<. [221-G-H; 222-A-B]
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.STATEELCJRICITYBOARD[G.N.RAY,J.] 203

;. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4401-03 A
of 1997 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.92/10.3.92 of the Al-
lahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 10379, 16723/88 and 16325/90 and
W. No. NiV1992.
B
T.R. Andharujina, Solicitor General, B. Sen, Ms. Sunita Sharma,
Subrat Birla, S.A. Gadkar, P.H. Parekh, Sunil Gupta, K.J. John, Pradeep
Misra, T. Mahipal, D.M. Mahajan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Rakhi Ray and
Ms. T. Sudha for the appearing parties.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.N. RAY, J. (1) 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 D
Writ Petition No. 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 Nos. 16723/88 and 16325/90 challenging the validity of
the bills for the months of June and July, 1988 issued by the U.P. State
Electricity Board and also the demand dated June 14, 1990 made by the
said Board. By the impugned judgment dated February 19, 1992, the High E
Court quashed 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 direct-
ing that the fresh bills for the period 7.9.87 to 10.10.90 be issued on the F
basis of new meter. By the order dated March 10, 1992, the Division Bench
of the Allahabad 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 Electricity Board in respect of the bill dated January, 1992
and disconnecting the supply of electricity in the factory of the appellant. G
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 hours and also directing the U .P.
State Electricity Board to prepare the bills for the period subsequent to
10.10.90 within a months with a further direction to the appellant to pay
such bill within a month thereafter. H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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.

On February 7, 1986 U.P. State Electricity Board installed a meter
B bearing No. 5850497 in the factory of the appellant. 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 Septem-
ber 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
C 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 appellant, however, deposited the testing fee and requested the
Electricity Board to check the said test meter. The Board, however, con-
D tinued to raise the bills on the basis of the said check meter for the period
December, 1987 to May, 1988. On April 26, 1988, the Electricity Board
wrote to the appellant that the Bills for May, 1987 to November, 1987could
be revised on 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,
E 1987 to November, 1987 on the basis of reading in the check meter and
threatened the appellant that the electricity connection would be discon-
tinued 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 dated May 17, 1988. During the pendency
of the said Writ Petition, the Electricity Board again raised bills for the
F months of June and July, 1988 on the basis of check meter and also
threatened the appellant that disconnection would be resorted to if the
payment was not made. The appellant then moved another Writ Petition
No. 16723/88 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the said bills for
June and July, 1988. By an interim order, the High Court restrained the
G disconnection of the electric supply subject to the payment 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
H June 4, 1990 for the said sum of Rs. 5,54,963.64. The High Court passed
BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. v. U.P. STATEELCTRICITY BOARD (G.N. RAY, J.) 205

an interim order staying the operation of the demand and directed the A
appellant to 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, B
1910. In the said report, the Electrical Inspector held that the original
meter as well as the check meter were incorrect. The Electrical Inspector
made· an estimate 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 demand accordingly for a period of six months and the Electrical C
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 February 19, 1992, by common judgment the High
Court disposed of all the said Writ Petitions by quashing \'arious demand
notices issued on the basis of the check meter and directing that the D
payment oe made on the basis of estimate of Electrical Inspector dated
October 10, 1990 in respect of the said period of six months and also
directed that fresh bills for the 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 E
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 India Electricity F
Act, 1910, the State Electricity Board being the licensee has power to enter
the premises of the appellant and to remove fitting where a supply of
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 G
also empowered to ascertain the amount of energy supplied or the electri-
cal quantity contained in the supply.

Mr. Gupta has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 26(6) of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as it stood before the amendment to the
following effect : H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Section 26(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, or a competent person specially ap-
pointed by the State Government in this behalf; and where the
meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector or person, ceased to
B 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 lie to the Inspector, whose
c decision shall in every case be final ; but save as aforesaid, the
register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive
proof of such amount of quantity :

Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies
D 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.

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.
E 32 of 1959 :-

26. Meters : (1) In the absense of an agreement to the country, the
amount of energy supplied to a 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 ,
F the consumer to be supplied with such a meter :

Provided 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.
G
(2) Wliere the consumer so enters into an agreement for the hire
of a meter, the licensee 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
H meter.
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.SfATEELCTRICITYBOARD[G.N.RAY,J.) 207

(3) Where the meter is the property of the consumer, he shall A
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.

B
(4) The licensee on 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
c
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 D
Electrical Inspector, and the decision of such Inspector shall
be final:

(5) ......................................
(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any E
meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the
matter shall be decided, upon the application or 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 F
consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply,
during such time, not exceeding §ix months, as the meter shall
' not, in the opinion or' such Inspector have been correct; but
save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the
absense of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or
quantity: G

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 not less than seven days' notice of his intention so
to do. H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (7) In addition to any meter which may be placed upon the
premises of a consumer in pursuance of the provisions of sub-
section (1), the licensee may place upon such premises such
meter, maximum demand indicator or other apparatus as he
thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining or regulating either
the amount of energy supplied to the consumer, or the num-
B ber of hours during which the supply is given, or the rate per
unit of time at which energy is supplied to the consumer, or
any other quantity or time connected with the supply :

Provided that the meter, indicator or apparatus shall not, in
c the absense of an agreement to the 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 indicating of any such
D meter, indicator or apparatus as aforesaid the licensee shall, in the
absense of an agreement to the country, keep the meter, indicator
or apparatus correct; and the provisions of sub sections (4) (5)
and (6) shall in that case apply as though the meter, indicator or
app_aratus were a meter referred to in sub- section (1).
E
Explanation - A meter shall be deemed to be "correct" if it
registers the amount of energy supplied, or the ekctrical 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
F such conditions as 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 :
G 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 Sec-
H tion 26 shall be of appropriate capacity and shall be deemed
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.STATEELCTRICITYBOARD(G.N.RAY,J.) 209

to be correct if its limits of error are within the limits specified A
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. B

(3) Every supplier shall provide and maintain in proper condition
such suitable apparatus as may be prescribed or approved by
the Inspector for the examination, testing and regulation of
meters used or intended to be used in connection with the C
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 supplier for the purpose aforesaid.
D
(4} Every supplier shall examine, test and regulate all meters,
maximum demand indicators and other apparatus for ascer•
taining 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 this behalf.
E
(5) Every supplier shall maintain a register of meters showing the
date last test, the error recorded at the time of the test, limit ·
of accuracy after adjustment and final test, the date of instal-
lation, withdrawal, reinstallation etc., for the examination of
the Inspector or his authorised representative.
F
(6) 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 meters in case it is found defective."

Mr. Gupta has contended that on a correct reading of Section 26 as G
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 H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 disp<;nsed with
B
on being decided that it is incorrect by the Electrical Inspector in accord-
ance with the procedure prescribed by Section 26( 6) of the Indian
Electricity Act Mr. Gupta has submitted that so long meter on being
adjudicated as defective is not discarded by replacing correct meter, the
consumer treats the said meter as the correct and can raising the bill on
C 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
D meter. The appellant also did not raise any doubt about the correctness of
the said meter. But during the pendency of the Writ Petition, th1~ 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
E meter was installed by the Board for the purpose of checking the correct-
ness of the original meter installed earlier. Therefore, the very purpose of
the check meter was to take the reading of the check meter for the purpose
of verifying the reading in the original meter installed by the Board Mr.
Gupta has submitted that until and unless any doubt raised about the
F 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 liberty 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 Indiart Electricity
G Act. Mr. Gupta has contended that any proposal of correctness of one
meter by another meter should not be permitted until the co:rrectness of
the earlier meter installed is finally decided by Electrical Inspector as
incorrect. Mr. Gupta has contended that any liberty granted to the Board
to continue to dislodge and dislocate one meter after another meter
H arbitrarily, whimsically and without any reason and without the concur-
BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LID. v. U.P. STATE ELCIRICITY BOARD [G.N. RAY, J.) 211

- rence 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
A

so delicately 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 B
only manifest that the original correct meter once duly installed with the
concurrence of concerned 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 C
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 D
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.
E
Mr. Gupta has submitted that Section 21 of the Indian Electricity Act
bars and disentitles the Board from prescribing any special form of ap-
pliance and it also indicates that the original correct meter cannot be
tinkered with. Regulation 21 (ii) of the Elec~ricity (Supply) Regulations
1984 also provides for a check meter only for checking the accuracy of the F
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 G
under sub-section (1) for purposes of ascertaining the ~ount of energy
supplied to the consumer, it must be held to be a breach of sub-section (7)
inasmuch as such placement is in lieu of i;nd 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 such meter cannot directly dislodge and H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A replace the said original meter and not indirectly allow to do so by means •
of any process or 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
B 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 premises vests in Electrical Inspec-
tor under sub-section (6) of Section 26, it is not open to the Board to assign
C 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
D 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
ansen.
E
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. Gup~a has also contended that although sub-sec-
F tion (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 ascertaining 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
G sub-section (4), (5) and (6) shall mutatis mutandis also apply to the said
additional apparatus as though it was the meter referred to under sub-sec-
tion (1). In other words, if the Board has any doubt about the conectness
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
H consumer not less then seven days' notice of its intention to do so. Any
BELWALSPINNING MILLS LID. v. U.P. SfAIB ELCTRICITY BOARD (G.N. RAY, J.) 213

correctness undertaken otherwise would not be a reference under Sub-sec- A
tion (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 B
unilaterally and without notice add any further complaint with regard to
any other apparatus by merely making some ·mention of it in a letter
forming part of the correspondence taking place in connection with a
validly referred dispute relating, to the meter. Much less can it do so by
resorting to such methods in the course of a correspondence taking place C
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 relating 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 D
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 compound the breach of principles of natural
justice and fair play. E
According to Mr. Gupta any controversy, correspondence, opinion,
adjudication etc. appearing 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 transpired F
in accordance with the procedural 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 G
consumer or by licensee about the correctness of the meter installed at the
premises of the consumer, such dispute is got to be resolved by making a
reference to the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector after the
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 H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A to 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
B 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
C Electrical Inspector whenever any doubt arises about the correctm:ss of the
meter installed and getting appropriate adjudication by the Electrical
Inspector, the licensee cannot be permitted to raise any revised 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
D the premises of the consumer after the finding of the Electrical Inspector
that the earlier meter installed was defective.

Mr. Gupta has submitted 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
E 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 !~Ven 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
F by the Electrical Inspector would be held to be correct index of consump-
tion 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 earlkr period
G beyond the said statutory period of six months.

Mr. Gupta has submitted that unfortunately, 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
H Electricity Board to raise bills for the period exceeding the said siK months
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.STATEELCIRICITYBOARD(G.N.RAY,.I.( 215

for which estimated amount of electricity consumed was determined by the A
Electrical Inspector on the basis of reading of the meters installed at the
premises of the appellant. Such order of the High Court is clearly illegal
and against the provisions of Section 26 of the Electricity Act and thus it
cannot be sustained.
B
So for 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 C
March 10, 1992 passed on the last Writ Petition of the appellant is
manifestly unjust, improper and illegal.

Mr. B. Sen, learned senior counsel appearing for the U.P. State
Electricity Board has, however, submitted that the Board has the power to D
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 E
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 amendment is not that any F
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 Inspector that the meter is not correct, the G
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 H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A restricted upto a time period. This does not mean that the met,er 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
B latter. Section 26(6) is not a section which bars the latter claim either by
limitation or otherwise. Consequently, it is open to the licensee 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.
c 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.

D 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 effected in sub-sec-
tion (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
E or defeated. Mr. Sen has submitted that it was open to the licensee to make
revised bills for the 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.

F Mr. Sen has also submitted that although the last Writ Petition was
moved for asrniling the bills raised for a particular month but the conten-
tion 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 meter even if the installed meter has been
G 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 such contention cannot be accepted and the High Court has already
answered against the appellant in disposing of the earlier three writ peti-
tions, the impugned interim direction given by the High Court appears to
H be just and proper and no interference is called for against the judlgment
BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. v. U.P. STATE ELCTRICITY BOARD (G.N. RAY, J.J 217

of the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Mr. Sen has, A
therefore, submitted that these appeals should be dismissed.

Mr. T.R. Andherujina, learned Solicitor General, has appeared for
the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, the appellant in Civil
Appeal Nos. 2538 of 1985 and Civil Appeal No. 1571 of 1987. Civil Appeal B
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 Manufac-
toring 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 1987 is directed against Order dated July 1, 1987 C
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 im-
pugned 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 Manufactr- D
ing 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 no comparison of the two meters, it was revealed E
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 F
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· agreed not to discon-
nect the electric supply for non-payment of the amount demanded during
the pendency of the reference. On July 10, 1973, the Electrical Inspector G
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 the decision of the Electrical 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, H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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. 173of1979 and such appeals
has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated April 4, 1985.

By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that ornce the
B 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 that the meter ceased to
C 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 discon-
nect 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
D proceeding the demand. Similar claim by presenting revised bills on ac-
count 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 that Section 24(i)
E 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 there 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
F given his dec_ision. Where the Inspector has given his decision estimating
the amount of energy supplied to the consumer under Section 26{6) during
such time not excf!eding 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 Generl'l has
also submitted that in respect of the period exceeding six months, the
G 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 prejudice to his right to recover
..
such charge by suit. Mr. Solicitor General has submitted that it is, there-
fore, not correct that a licensee can under no circumstances avail of the
H powers of disconnection under Section 24(1) on the score of non-payment
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLID. v. U.P.STATEELCIBICITYBOARD(G.N.RAY,J.) 219

of the revised bills relating to a period exceeding six months as referred to A
in Section 26(6). Since the appellant can raise the revised bill 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.
B
Mr. Gupta in reply has, however, disputed 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. C
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 have been to put D
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 E
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 v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., [1983) 1 SCC 147.

F
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 created between parties. For such
contention, reference has been made to Craies on Statute 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 G
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 H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A proof clause was meat to legislatively resolve and settle the claims of the
licensee during such an uncovered or unestimated period of adjudicated
incorrectness.

Mr. Gupta has submitted that the said conclusive proof clause was
B 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 proof clause in the scheme
of Section 26(6) and reject any interpretation which would render it otiose,
superfluous and redundant. In support of the this contention, Mr. Gupta
C 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 Inspector on a
reference raising dispute about 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
D 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
estimate 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
E 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
estimate basis.

Mr. Gupta has also submitted that under Section 26 (6), the Parlia-
F ment has deliberately chosen to deny and disallow the alleged claims of the
licensee beyond a period of six months and it is not a case of a 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 ·
G 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
H beyond the said period of six months. The Parliament has never made any
BELWAL SPINNING MILL.5 LTD. v. U.P. SI'ATEELCTRICITY BOARD (G.N. RAY, J.) 221

attempt of amending Section 26(6) so as to resolve it of the judicial A
interpretation. The silence on the part of the Parliament, therefore, indi-
cates that the interpretation of Section 26(6) by High Courts over long
stretch of period has rightly reflected the true intention of the Parliament
which therefore, deserves to ·be accepted by this Court.

Mr. Gupta has lastly submitted that sub-section (6) of Section 26 is B
capable of being interpreted differently and should be interpreted dif-
ferently 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 C
(6) of Section 26 has to be interpreted in the light of all other conrlected
limbs of the statute and with reference to specific context in question. If it
appears to the Court that on account of short sightedness of the legislative
draftsman who drafted the six months' rule in the 1959 amendment, un-
merited prejudice and hardship have been caused to the consumers, the
judicial wing may have to depend on its own creativity so that hardship is D
not meted out to the consumers. In this connection, Mr. Gupta has relied
on the decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reconstmc-
tion Coperatio11 Ltd. v. 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 E
petitions 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 consideration to the facts and circumstances F
of the cases in these appeals and the submissions made by Mr. Gupta, Mr.
Sen and Mr. Andherujina, the 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 other apparatus installed
by the licensee. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 authorises the G
licensee to enter the premises of the consumer for 'inspecting, testing,
repairing or altering the supply lines, meters, fittings and apparatus for the
supply of energy belonging to the licensee. The licensee, therefore, can not
only enter the premises of the consumer for inspecting, testing, etc. but the
licensee also can alter the meter whenever such altercation is needed. Such
power under Section 20 does not depend on the adjudication of correctness H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 functions of the licensee to maintain the corre1:t meter
for recording the quantum of electricity supplied to the consumer. Sue!).
duty to ensure maintenance of correct meter in the premises of the con-
sumer has been indicated in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section
B 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 functioning of the meter has been referred to the
Electrical Inspector under Sub section (6) of Section 26. A lic1~nsee is
authorised under sub-section (7) of Section 26 to place, in addition to the
C meter installed in the premise~ 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.

D Check meter is usually installed for the purpose of checking and
ascertaining the proper functioning of the 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
E another meter is 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
F 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
founds its case with reference to check meter. Prior to the amendment of
Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector or the competent
G person specially appointed by the State Government in this behalf, had a
statutory duty to first determine whether 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
H amendment of sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Electrical Inspector is the
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.SfAIBELCIRICITYBOARD[G.N.RAY,J.] 223

only statutory authority to decide the dispute about the correctness of the A
meter, if such dispute is raised by either of the parties. If the Electrical
Inspector on a reference comes to the finding that the meter 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 B
the opinion of such Inspector, have been co"ect.'

(emphasis added)

From the legislative change effected in sub-section (6) of Section 26,
1t 1s evident that prior to the amendment of sub-section (6), upon a C
determination that the meter in question was defective, the Electrical
Inspector or the competent person had a statutory duty to also estimate
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 D
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 E
six months'.

The point of time with reference to which the electricity consumed
by the consumer is to be estimated by the Electrical Inspector for such
period not exceeding six months' has not been specifically indicated in
sub-section (6) of Section 26. The expression 'during such time' appearing F
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 G
(iii) date of reference and date of adjudication

(iv) date of dispute and date of adjudication

It does not require any imagination to hold that the dispute when H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 technical test may be necessary to finally
adjudicate the dispute as to the correctness of the meter. Unless the
B 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-
C 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 period
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
D finding that the meter in question has ceased to be correct, is not 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
E a particular date which is not upto six months earlier to the the date of
raising the dispute for reference. In such case, the estimate to be prepared
by the Electrical Inspector may not go upto 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, according to the Electrical
F 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 statutory
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
G 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
H of the Electricity Act, the licensee being burdened with the duty to main-
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLID. v. U.P.STATEELCTRICIIYBOARD(G.N.RAY,J.) 225

tain the correct meter installed by it and coupled with the power to inspect A
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 lice\lsee has failed to properly check the functioning of B
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 contention of Mr. Gupta. According to Mr. Sen and C
Mr. Andherujina, 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.
D
Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 provides that in the absence of any
agi:eement to the contrary, the amount 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 duties of the consumer and the licensee E
to keep the meter and other apparatus necessary for recording the con-
sumption 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 etc. the meter and other
apparatus and for repairing and altering the same if needed. Explanation F
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 apparatus 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 or other apparatus." G

Sub-section (6) of Section 26 provides that in case of any difference
or dispute 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 Electrical Inspector. It also provides that on a finding that meter ceased H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to be correct, the Electrical Inspector has to make an e:stimate of
consumption of electricity during the statutory period as reforred 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,
B namely, estimation of consumption of electricity by the Electrical Inspector
for the statutory period, "the register of the meter shal~ in the· absence of
fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity."

(emphasis added)

c On a conjoint reading of various sub-sections of Section 26 of the
Electricity Act, it is evident that consumption of ele~tricity 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
D 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 estimate of supply of electricity to the
consumer as may be determined by the Electrical Inspe:ctor for the
E statutory period referred to in sub-section (6) of Section 26.

Although the licensee is clothed with the power to maintain a correct
meter installed at 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 apparatus if found defective on checking or
F testing by licensee, but if the dispute as to the correct status of the meter
or other electrical apparatus is raised either by the licensee or by the
consumer by making reference to the Electrical Inspector under sub-sec-
tion (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
G the licensee unless the dispute is resolved by the Electrical Inspector. If
there is a dispute as to the proper functioning of the meter or check meter
or other electrical apparatus under sub-section (6) of Section 26, the
Electrical Inspector upon entering the reference would determined 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
H that the meter ceased to be correct, he is to determine the quantum of the
BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. v. U.P. STATE ELCTRICITY BOARD [G.N. RAY, J.J 227

electricity consumed during the statutory period referred to in sub-section A
(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 B
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 legisla- C
ture 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 D
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 fer which the estimation is not to be made
by the Electrical Inspector, the register of the meter about the consumption E
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 absolved
from the duty to determine as to from which point of time beyond the said
statutory period, the met!Mio had ceased to function so that for such entire F
period, the estimation of the supply of electricity need not be made. Such
amendment of sub-section (6), in 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 other electrical apparatus, the con-
sumer has liability to pay the estimated amount indicated by the Electrical
Inspector limiting the estimate upto the statutory period and not beyond G
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. H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Such legislative change by the amendment of sub-section 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 statutory period for estimation.
B There is good reason for such legislative change because it may not be
possible to precisely determine exactly from which point of time the meter
ceased to be correct. The scheme under the 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
consumption of electricity is computed on the basis of reading in the meter.
c The scheme also reveals that unilateral decision of either of the parties
about the correct status of the meter is not to oe 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
D authority under Section 26(6), namely, the Electrical Inspector. Within the
integrated scheme under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, it is not possible
that even though dispute is raised about the ma! functioning of the meter
such dispute will be treated as statutory resolved for a limited period in
accordance with the amended sub-section (6) of Section 26 but for other
E 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 meter 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
F 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
G the Electrical Inspector attaching statutory fmality 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 Legislature has intended to put an end of
H such contest between the licensee and the consumer and has set at rest of
BELWALSPJNNINGMILLSLID. v. U.P.STATEELCTRICITYBOARD(G.N.RAY,J.] 229

any dispute relating to any period anterior to the statutory period of A
estimation by providing that in a case 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 allegation that the
B
concerned consumer, had practised fraud or had tampered with the meter
or other electrical apparatus 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 ~onsumed in the meter/check meter as conclusive proof of such
amount of quantity of electricity consumed for all the period anterior to C
statutory period of estimation 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 of 1987 D
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 No. E
10379 of 1988, 16723 of 1988 and 16325 of 1990 and also the interim order
dated March 10, 1992 passed in the Writ Petition No. nil filed 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 F
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 G
protection of conclusive proof of consumption of electricity for such period
on the basis of reading in the meter. The respondented-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 H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A non-payment for the consumption of electricity for any period earlier than
' .
the. statutory period beyond the quantity registered by the installed mater.
It is, however, made clear that it will be open for the U.P. State Electricity
Board to raise bills and demand payment for the period subsequent to the
statutory period and to take consequential action for non payment of bills
B 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 Appeals 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
C obligation to keep the installed meter and other electrical appa:ratus 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
D 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
E 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 feeJ that _the proper legislative amendment is desirable so as to
p protect the large number of licensees including the Electricity Board from
suffering huge loss of revenue.

R.K.S. CA. 4401-03/97 allowed.
C.A. No. 1571/87,
CA. No. 2538/85,
CA No. 1255/86 dismissed

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "electricity meter"Sign in to search