The Electricity Board must refer disputes regarding defective meters to the Electrical Inspector before raising supplementary bills, as mandated by S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

1. This writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the supplementary bill raised by the respondent / Board vide impugned memo dated 11/06/92 (Annexure P / 1). The petitioner has also assailed the correctness and validity of notice of disconnection dated 24/06/93 (Annexure P / 2).

2. Quintessential facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition are that the petitioner is an industrial consumer who was provided electricity connection by the respondent / Board. During the period of consumption of electricity for industrial use by the petitioner, an inspection was carried out by the authorities of the Board on 17/08/91 and the officers of the Board found the current transformer / potential transformer, defective and not giving correct recording of consumption. As the pleadings and documents placed on record goes to show, the respondent / Board intimated this fact to the petitioner and the petitioner vide his communication dated 30/01/92 (Annexure P / 7) raised protest. Though initially certain communications were made by the Board expressing its inability to install new CT / PT unit, communication dated 28/02/92 (Annexure P / 10) shows that a new CT / PT unit had become available with the Board and the same was replaced on 19/02/92.

3. The officers of the Board however, proceeded to raise a supplementary bill vide impugned communication (Annexure P / 1) dated 11/06/92 wherein, it was stated that after replacement of defective CT / PT unit, energy consumption has been recorded correctly but as in respect of the previous period, incorrect recording was taking place in the defective meter, a supplementary bill amounting to Rs.7,00,849/- in respect of the period from January, 1990 to February, 1992 has been raised. The petitioner, however, disputed and vide his communication dated 22/06/92 (Annexure P / 13) disputed supplementary electricity bill and requested the authorities to withdraw the same with a further request to draw a supplementary bill in a just and proper manner. The request of the petitioner was not accepted with the result that vide impugned notice dated 24/06/93, a notice of, non - payment of charges and disconnection of electricity supply was issued. This action of the respondent has given rise to the present petition.

4. Assailing the correctness and validity of the respondents - action raising supplementary bill, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in raising supplementary bill and thereafter, threatening disconnection on non - payment of the said supplementary bill is contrary to the provisions contained in S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short ' the Act of 1910'). 1t is argued that the respondent proceeded to raise supplementary bill without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. According to him, once a meter is found defective and a dispute is raised, it is obligatory on the part of the Electrical Inspector to refer the matter for adjudication of Electrical Inspector before raising any supplementary bill. Without such course of action having been adopted, the action of the respondents is illegal and unauthorized. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on several authorities - Hamidullah Khan, Jabalpur v. The Chairman. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Rampur. Jabalpur and Others, AIR 1983 MP 1 , Smt. Basantibai v. M.P. Electricity Board Indore and Others, AIR 1985 MP 70 , H. D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, AIR 1987 Delhi 21