C.K. Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Application for quashing the letter dated 30-3-1996 (Annexure P/12) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,51,713.14/- (rupees one lakh fiftyone thousand seven hundred and thirteen and fourteen paise) as electrical charges failing which it has been threatened that the electrical line of the petitioner shall be disconnected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents that till decision on the dispute raised by the petitioner, before the Electrical Inspector, no revised bill be sent by respondents to the petitioner.

2. Facts giving rise to the present application, are that the petitioner is a small scale industrial unit and is a consumer of respondent. According to the petitioner on 17-11-1995, the premises of the petitioner was visited by respondent No. 3 and meter inspected. It is the stand of the petitioner that the aforesaid act of respondent No. 3 in making inspection was without following the mandate Under Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and no prior information was given to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner further is that after the inspection, the respondents raised additional bill but it was never informed about the same and for the first time by the impugned order, the petitioner has been asked to make payment of additional electricity bill failing which the respondents threatened to disconnect the electrical line. It is the stand of the petitioner that he has raised dispute before the Electrical Inspector, Ujjain by filing an application on 3-4-1996 and as such the respondents are debarred from effecting disconnection of the electrical line till the decision by the Electrical Inspector.

3. The respondents have stated in their reply that on inspection it was found that the wire of Ill-phase meter have been removed. The meter was not recording the actual consumption. It has been further stated in the inspection report that after all the lines were restored the meter started moving on a forward direction and it is the stand of the respondents that there is no defect in the meter.

4. Shri Maheshwari in support of this Writ Application has made the following submissions:-

1. In his submission, the inspection of the meter of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 without prior information is not sanctioned by law. It is relevant here to state that respondents in the return have stated that the petitioner was informed about the inspection and in fact the inspection report has been signed by one of the employees of the petitioner and it is further contended that one of the signatories of the inspection report is the Director of the petitioner. Although, the petitioner has stated in the Writ Application that signature was obtained on a blank sheet but in view of the categorical denial of the respondent and further in view of the fact that signature of one of the Directors as also an employee of the petitioner, being present in the inspection report, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no information was given to the petitioner regarding inspection.

5. It is relevant here to state that Section 20 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 confers power on respondents to enter premises and remove fittings and other apparatus after informing the occupier of its intention. The signature of employees as also the Director, on inspection report clearly negatives the case of the petitioner that no information at all was given. The respondents have stated that inspection was made after giving information to the occupier, I am of the view that no violation of Section 20 of the Act, as contended by the petitioner, has taken place. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel.

6. Shri Maheshwari further submits that as the Electrical Inspector is in seisin of the ma