JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:—Leave granted.

2. The respondent, Ludhiana Steel Private Limited is a consumer of electricity. It had entered into an agreement with the Punjab State Electricity Board for supply of energy and was availing it. The meter installed at the respondents premises was checked on 6-4-1987. It was found that it was recording lower consumption than what was actually being consumed. Sometime later, a check meter was installed (on 16-5-1988) and, we are told, the petitioner has been paying the charges on the basis of the readings recorded by the check-meter. For the period commencing 6-10-1986 (six months prior to the date of check) up to 16-5-1988 (the date on which the check-meter was installed) the Board sent a bill dated 16-8-1988 in a sum of Rs.28,56,854/- towards the energy said to have been consumed by the plaintiff but not recorded by the meter. Contesting the said bill, the plaintiff instituted a suit asking for a permanent injunction restraining the Board and its officials from recovering the said amount or any part thereof on the basis of the said bill. In that suit, he applied for a temporary injunction which was granted initially but vacated later. Meanwhile, the respondent applied to the Electrical Inspector under subsection (6) of S. 26 of the Indian Electricity Act requesting him to decide whether the meter was not correct and whether he is liable to pay any amount over and above that paid by him already with respect to the said period. The Electrical Inspector refused to proceed with the said application on the ground of pendency of the suit aforementioned.

3. Against the order vacating the temporary injunction, the respondent filed a revision before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court disposed of the revision petition directing the Electrical Inspector to decide the matter referred to him in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months. It clarified that the pendency of the suit is no ground for him not to proceed with the said application. The plaintiff/ respondent filed a review petition which was dismissed on 29th August, 1991. The present appeal is preferred against the order in the review petition.

4. When the Special Leave Petition came up for orders before a Bench comprising of Ranganath Misra, C. J. and one of us, G. N. Ray, J., the following order was passed:

"By the consent of parties we direct that the dispute be referred to the arbitration of Mr. Justice A. D. Koshal, a retired Judge of this Court. He may take the assistance of a technical assessor and may consult the Chief Inspector. We would suggest that the Arbitrator may fix his terms and would try to make his award within four months from now. The award may be sent to the Registry of this Court. Expenses shall be apportioned fifty-fifty.

5. In accordance with this order, Sri Justice A. D. Koshal entered upon the reference and passed his award on February 18, 1992. Before the Arbitrator, the plaintiff/ respondent split up its claim into three parts, each relating to a specific period as stated in the table below: (extracted from the award)

Designation of part Period Claim

Part A 6-10-1986 to 16-5-1988 The Boards demand contained in Bill dated 16-8-88 for Rs. 28,56,854/- and surcharge for non-payment of that amount must be rejected in full, subject only to the decision of C.E.I. regarding the accuracy of the first meter under sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the 1910 Act.

Part B 17-5-1988 to 10-8-1990 The Board has charged the Company in accordance with readings recorded by the second meter which is a very defective and wholly unreliable instrument.

Part C 10-8-1990 onwards The Board claims that second meter is also running slow.This the Company denies and the dispute has been referred to C.E.I. The Board can charge only in accordance with readings recorded by the first meter or, in any case, those by the second meter.

6. The learned Arbitrator held that the suit in which refere