Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. Writ Appeal is filed by KSEB challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge vacating the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer of the KSEB sustaining an electricity bill raised on respondent based on data gathered on inspection conducted by the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) of the KSEB. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.P.Santhalingam appearing for KSEB and also counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The respondent is an industrial consumer of electricity with LT-IV-3 phase connection with an authorised connected load of 80 KW. On 19.2.1999 the factory premises of the respondent was inspected by the Special Squad constituted by the KSEB along with their local Engineer. During inspection, the team noticed that the B phase of the CT power meter was reverse connected thereby neutralising even consumption recorded in the other two phases. In order to check whether the meter which was found to be in sealed and intact condition was working properly, the inspection team in the presence of the respondent's representative tested the meter at respondent's factory itself by applying load to each phase of the meter. In the course of testing it was found that the first and second phases were working properly. On applying load to the third phase, the meter disk was found rotating in the reverse direction. It was noticed that the petitioner was in full swing operation for 8 hours a day and was maintaining even support generator system to take care of production in the event of power failure. Inspite of 8 hours production confirmed by the employees, power consumption was found to be ridiculously low when compared to the connected load and production capacity of the plant. The reason for this low consumption was found to be only on account of reverse connection given to one phase of the meter which not only did record the consumption in that phase, but reversed the meter recording to the extent of the power consumed in that line. As a result of this, the consumption recorded in the meter was only one third of the actual consumption and, therefore, for short-assessment a bill was raised estimating two third consumption for the period commencing from 15.10.1994 to the date of inspection i.e. 19.2.1999. The reason for demanding arrears from 15.10.1994 was that the three separate meters connected on 21.1.1994 in each phase of supply was replaced by a single three phase CT meter on 15.10.1994.

3. The demand of power charges for short-assessment which amounted to Rs.2,95,294.55 for the five years period was questioned in appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB. The Deputy Chief Engineer considered the contentions of the respondent, verified the mahazar and other records and passed Ext.P6 sustaining the demand. It is against this order the respondent filed the O.P. before the learned Single Judge contending that the demand confirmed by the appellate authority is not sustainable because of violation of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, in as much as the meter was not inspected or the matter got referred to the Electrical Inspectorate for estimation of power consumption. While Senior counsel appearing for the appellant opposed the findings on fact and law by the learned Single Judge, counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment.

4. The question to be considered is whether a reference for inspection of the meter and estimation of power consumption by the Electrical Inspectorate as required under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act is applicable to this case. As already stated, the inspection is covered by mahazar prepared by the inspection team which is signed by the representative of the respondent. It is seen there from and from the appellate order of the Deputy Chief Engineer that the meter was found in perfect and sealed condition. Even though there was no tampering with the meter, what was found is that supply given to the meter was in the reverse direction in o