The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of defective wiring or wrong connections leading to incorrect recording of energy consumption, the dispute should not be referred to the Electrical Inspector under S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act.

Shanmugam, J.

These three matters raise common questions of law. The facts of each case are given below separately for better appreciation of the case.

2. W.A.No.16/1998: The petitioner in O.P.No. 876/1994 is the appellant. The appellant Company is engaged in the manufacture of ice. By the impugned communication (Ext. P4) dated 29-11-1993 the Assistant Executive Engineer stated that on inspection of the electrical installation in the premises of the appellant on 10-11-1993 the following defects were noticed. (1) 'B' phase of the power meter is seen reversely rotating due to wrong connection of the C..T. (2) Tamper proof box is not provided,

3. On the basis of the said report the respondent issued an additional bill amounting to Rs. 68,636/-. The appellant submitted objection (Ext. P5) dated 29-12-1993, which did not dispute the defects pointed out by the Assistant Executive Engineer. The explanation of the appellant was that the defect was not occasioned by reason of their act. As against the assessment made in Exts. P3 and P4, the appellant filed the O.P. seeking to quash those communications and also for a mandamus to direct the respondents to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector. The O.P. was dismissed and hence the appeal.

4. O.P.No. 27/1985: The petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of running an Ice Plant at Chavakkad. The Special Officer (Revenue) of Kerala State Electricity Board issued a supplementary invoice for Rs. 1,62,480.58 for short assessment of current charges for the period July, 1971 to September, 1976 on the ground that it was detected mat due to wrong connection the meter was not indicating the consumption correctly. As against these proceedings the petitioner preferred O.P.No. 755/1977 before this Court. By judgment dated 9-3-1979 this Court directed a proper investigation into the matter by a competent officer after giving due notice to the petitioner. Thereafter the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Trichur investigated the case after giving due notice to the parties and examining the petitioner, the Engineer-in-charge the then Assistant Engineers and gave a report to the Chief Engineer (Electrical). The Chief Engineer in his considered order dated 24-1-1980 gave the finding to the effect that due to the wrong connection in the metering set, only 50 per cent of the actual consumption was recorded. The order also took into account the readings per month before and after the inspection and finding of the defect in the wiring of the meter. The Chief Engineer has also stated that the proof was also produced on examination of the experts in the field of metering test. The fact of defective wiring in the metering set was pointed out and mahazar was prepared by the Assistant Engineer, which was witnessed by one of the representatives of the firm. Besides two independent witnesses were also examined during the enquiry. The further finding is to the effect that it was established beyond all reasonable doubt that the assessment made was incorrect due to the faulty connections to the metering set. Accordingly the Chief Engineer issued a revised supplementary invoice for Rs. 99, 383.27. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the Chief Electrical Inspector (Statutes), Trivandrum, who by order dated 26-11-1984 (Ext. P7) confirmed the findings of the Chief Engineer. In the order it is stated as follows:

"Therefore based on the relevant records produced by the MRT staff I presume that the meter connection in the premises was faulty. The type of wrong connection as is indicated will reduce the consumption recorded by the meter to 50 per cent of the actual consumption. This is seen to have been cross verified by rectifying the mistake in the connection and taking the subsequent readings. A comparison of the reading before rectifying the defect and after rectification of the defect clearly show that the presumption that the reading indicated by the meters was