Honble CHAUHAN, J.–This appeal arises from the judgment dated 7th August, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1377/1986. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has not only quashed the revised electricity bill raised by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board ("the Board", for short), but has also permitted the respondent No.1 to recover the electricity bill amount paid by the respondent No.1 to the Board. In this appeal, the Board has challenged only the latter part of the judgment; it is not aggrieved by the former part of the judgment.

(2). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 is a partnership firm running a business of storing of food articles in cold storage as well as running an ice factory. According to the respondent No. 1, there used to be an electricity connection in its factory. It was regularly paying the electricity bill as raised by the Board. However, in the month of February, 1984, the electric meter was changed. On 7.6.1985, some officers of the Board came to the appellants factory premises. They discovered that the meter had been tempered with; it was recording merely one-third of the actual consumption of electricity. After carrying out the inspection, a report was drawn up by the officers. On the basis of the said report, an additional bill for Rs. 1,22,354.80 was sent alongwith a charge of Rs. 16,021.20 as electricity tax. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the said additional bill, it filed a writ petition before this Court.

(3). In the writ petition, the respondent claimed that the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (`the Act, for short) has been violated. According to Section 24, an electricity connection can be disconnected only after giving seven days clear notice to the consumer. According to Section 24(2), where any difference and dispute is required to be determined by the electrical inspector, the licensee shall not exercise the power of disconnection until the inspector has given his decision. However, the Board had disconnected the electric connection without giving any notice for seven clear days and without permitting the respondent to raise the dispute before the electrical inspector. Moreover, in case a defective meter has been installed, according to Section 26(6) of the Act, the matter has to be referred to and has to be decided by the electrical inspector. However, in the present case, the procedure was not followed. Although, the Board had filed its reply, although it had claimed that the meter was tampered with and was recording only one-third of the consumption, during the course of argument, the Board conceded that in fact, a defective meter had been installed by it. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge concluded that instead of following the mandate of Section 26(6) of the Act, an additional bill was raised by the Board. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that illegal demand has been raised by the Board. Thus, the learned Single Judge had not only quashed and set aside the additional bill, but also permitted the respondent No. 1 to recover the amount paid by it to the Board. Hence this appeal before this Court.

(4). Mr. Virendra Lodha, the learned counsel for the appellant- Board, has argued that although the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the additional bill, the learned Single Judge was not justified in permitting the respondent No. 1 to recover the amount of the additional bill from the Board. In fact, according to the learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge should have directed that the meter be tested by the electrical inspector as warranted by law. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge has over-stepped his jurisdiction.

(5). On the other hand, Mr. R.P. Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, has argued that the meter was examined on 7.6.1985, the impugned judgment has been passed in 1997 i.e., af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document