( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2004 of 1983. Before the learned Single Judge the following contentions were urged on behalf of the petitioner :-

1) No demand can be raised for period which is more than three years after the consumption of the electricity. 2) Since the provisions of section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) have not been complied with, the demand raised by Delhi Electrie Supply Undertaking (for short called 219 desu )vide bill dated 1st November, 1980 was liable to be quashed. 3) Assuming there can be a demand which is raised in case of a defective meter, then the basis of caleculating the correct consumption of electricity during the periord should be not with reference to the subsequent period but should be with reference to the period erlier than the period in question.

( 2 ) DEALING wilh the above contentions the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment gave the following findings:-

1) Even though the liability to pay may arise when the electricity is consumed by the petitioner, nevertheless it becomes due and payable only when the liability i quantified and a bill is raised. The DESU is, therefore, at liberty to send a bill for consumiption of electricity even three years after the electricity has been consumed. 2) Section 26 (6) of the Act provides for the Electrical Inspector taking a decision on disputed quiestion and in this the requirement of the inspector following the principle of natural justice is implicit. Further under section 26 (6) of the Act, an estimate by the Electrical Inspector is not to be for a period in excess of six menths. In the present case since the Electrical Inspector was never brought in the picture and DESU took a unilateral decision and the bill was for a period in excess of six months, the provisions of section 26 (6) of the Act have been violated. In view of non-compliance of section 26 (6) of the Act, the bill datd 1st November, 1980 is quashed. It is also held that DESU can raise a valid demand only by complying with the provisions of section 26 (6) of the Act if it alleges that the ,meter was defective and not of her wise. 3) In case of a defective meter the electricity charges should be calculated in terms of clause 22 (d) of the Conditions of Supply Say in case of a defective meter in the months of May to July 1973, the amount of electricity consumption will be calculated by having reference to the consumption in the previous three season months i. e. for the same months for the years 1970,1971 and 1972.

( 3 ) FOR the reasons mentioned here in above the writ petition was allowed with costs, hence the present appeal has been filed by the DESU. It may be pointed out here that in the present case cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the respondent and in the cross-objections the rinding of the learned Single Judge that the period of three years will start from the date the bill is submilled to the consumer, has been challenged. Besides, the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, counsel for the writ petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1443 of 1988 and other connected writ petitions also addressed arguments since the points raised in the connected writ petitions were also identical to those raised in the present appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Ashwani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the writ petition itsell was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Act. He. submited that under section 26 (6) of the Act the disputes or difference between the licencee (DESU) and consumer are required to be referred to Electricalinspector who has got technical knowledge, lt is, therfore, not proper to entertain the dispute of this this nature in. a petition underarticle 226 of the Constitution. Insupport of his contention the learne