Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President—The Chandigarh Electricity Department has demanded a sum of Rs. 6,01,187/- as sundry charges for the period 4/95 to 11/95 vide their Memo No. 4360 dated 10.11.1997 Annexure C1 from the complainant. This demand has been challenged through this complaint. It has been averred that the readings of the meter and the basis for arriving at the aforesaid sum has not been conveyed. The demand is barred by time. Besides this, it has been averred that the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Manual have not been adopted and the respondent is deficient. Even otherwise, a demand beyond a period of six months was never tenable.

2. In a reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been averred that a check meter was installed at the premises of the consumer vide Job Order No. 70/395 dated 14.9.1995 and the readings for the period 19.10.1995 to 25.10.1995 were checked and the percentage of slowness was assessed at 39. It was on account of this slowness of the electricity meter that demand for Rs. 6,01,187/- has been made.

3. The respondent has mainly relied upon the demand of Rs. 6,01,187/- made through its letter dated 10.11.1997 Annexure Cl. However, in the bills Annexures Cl to C12, the columns of arrears remained blank throughout. The learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to Clause 6 of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and it is reproduced as under:

“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 mater shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity.”

4. 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.”

A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that whenever there is such a dispute, it shall be referred to the Electrical Inspector and he alone is the Competent Authority to give a finding. In this case, if the respondent had a suspicion that the meter was running slow, it was expected to give notice to the consumer and apply to the Electrical Inspector as contained in the proviso reproduced above. This essential requirement was never fulfilled.

5. The learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to Khurshed Sorabji Cooper v. Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, AIR 1995 Bombay 79, wherein it was observed that only the Electrical Inspector could opine whether the meter had ceased to be correct. The arbitrary back billing was held unjustified. In Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 2793, it has been observed that 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 meter and other electrical apparatus and in the event the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter ceased to be correct, he is to determine the quantum of the electricity consumed during the statutory period referred to in Sub-section (6). It has further been observed that the consumer has the liability to pay the estimated amount indicated by the Electrical Inspector. In HD Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., AIR 1987 Delhi 219, it was observed that even if a meter has been defective