VAKIL, J. : This petition raises the question of proper construction of Section 24(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner is the licensee within the meaning of the said Act as also the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and is the sole owner of the Bilimora Electric Power Supply Company. The petitioner does not generate electricity but receives electrical energy from the Gujarat Electricity Board and distributes it in the town of Bilimora. The petitioner supplied electrical energy of high-tension as well as low-tension. As regards the supply of high tension power, the tariffs for the payment of charges for the supply of energy have been fixed by the Gujarat Electricity Board and they are known as Grid Tariffs. There are two schedules of tariffs called TH/HTP-1 and TII/HTP-2. The Schedule HTP-2 applies in respect of supply of high-tension power for the combined purposes of lighting and power services in cases where the consumption for lighting purposes is 15 percent and above but does not exceed 50 per cent of the total consumption. Respondent No. 1 is Electrical Inspector. Respondent No. 2 partnership is a consumer and under an agreement dated the 1st of May 1966 has been supplied high-tension power. The second respondent under the agreement had agreed to pay for the high-tension energy supplied, at rates as per the Schedules HTP-1 and HTP-2 fixed by the Electricity Board from time to time In respect of the high tension power supplied to respondent No. 2, bills for demand of May, June and July 1966 were prepared and submitted to them in accordance with the rates contained in tariff HTP-1 as it was not noticed by the petitioner that the lighting consumption by respondent No. 2 was over 15 per cent of the total consumption. But thereafter having come to know about it, for the month of August bill dated 12th September 1966 was prepared on the basis of Schedule HTP-2 and submitted to respondent No. 2. The bill was however returned by respondent No. 2 asking the petitioner to amend it as according to them it was not in accordance with the tariff. Petitioner sent back the hill intimating respondent No. 2 that it did not require any amendment as it was in accordance with the tariff. Petitioner also having noticed that even during the months of May, June and July respondent No. 2 had used energy for lighting purposes over 15 p.c. of the total energy consumed, sent revised bills for the three months on the basis of tariff HTP-2. Respondent No. 2 on the 3rd of October 1966 on their own calculation sent with a letter, cheque for Rs. 1863.34 only for payment of the bill for the month of August 1966. In the said letter, they also mentioned that they were not prepared to pay even the difference in the amount claimed by the petitioner in respect of the months of May, June and July as according to them the said demand was not justified. On the 4th of October 1966 the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No. 2 forwarding a copy of the letter to respondent No. 1 that the bills submitted were correct and the cheque for the lesser amount would not be accepted and as they have failed to remit the amount due, in time necessary notice shall be served on them. In the meantime the second respondent sent in an application to respondent No. 1 dated the 22nd of September 1966 purporting to submit the dispute to the first respondent. It was contended therein by the 2nd respondent that the bills served by the petitioner were in excess of the legal rates which the petitioner was entitled to charge. On the 4th of October 1966 respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the petitioner informing him that the bill for August 1968 sent to respondent No. 2 was likely to be disputed. In reply, the petitioner put the respondent No. 1 in possession of all the facts and thereafter on the 5th of October 1966 gave a notice to respondent No. 2 demanding the payment of the amount of the bill for August failing w