BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) AS per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner entered into an agreement on 15. 2. 1983 with the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for supply of electricity at the maximum demand of 3,000 KVA Clause 5 (a) of the said agreement provides that the Board Shall provide and erect such switch gear and metering equipment as may be necessary to afford the supply of power. Clause 12 of the said agreement provides that the supply of electricity taken from the Board shall be measured by the matter and that the Board shall be entitled to charge rent on account of such metering equipment. Clause 15 of the said agreement provides that the consumer shall be entitled to have a test carried on merit at any time. The petitioner had been paying electricity charges as per the bill raised by the Board. On a report made by the respondent No. 3 ASsistant Engineer (BSD), Alwar, certain officials including respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer (MTD), RSEB Alwar, visited the petitioner's factory on 16. 5. 1988 and on testing of meter, it was found that the meter was recording slow below 50% load. On 15th January 1989, the meter was again tested and it was found recording slow on 50% load. On 3. 2. 1989, the petitioner vide representation Annexure 4 wrote to the respondent No. 2 that the meter was accurate above 50% load and that their load had never fallen below 50% and hence, they were liable to pay only for the consumption of electricity recorded by the meter. The petitioner further requested that the meter may be again re-tested. On 7. 2. 1989, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 200/-as charges for re-testing of the meter. On 17. 2. 1989, the petitioner again reminded for getting re-testing done. In the meanwhile, on 8. 2. 1989, another communication was sent by the petitioner to the Board that if the Board does not agree with the reading of the meter, the Board may refer the meter to the Electrical Inspector for determination of the question as to whether the meter was defective or was recording less consumption of electricity at certain loads and if so, the extent of the erroneous recording etc. but nothing was done. A bill had been sent by the Board on 10. 5. 1989 by which the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 2,54,017. 90 by way of amount debited to their account in view of the testing dated 15. 1. 1989, i. e. from August, 1988 to January, 1989 and the amount of the bill was to be paid by cheque on or before 24. 05. 1989 and in cash, on or before 26. 5. 1989. The petitioner submitted a representation on 15. 5. 1989 to the respondent Board stating that the above demand was absolutely illegal. The petitioner further submitted that such a demand could only be raised on the basis of the report of the Electricity Inspector but no reply was received and therefore, the present writ petition was filed on 17. 5. 1989, for quashing and setting aside the demand for a sum of Rs. 2,54,017. 90 raised by the respondent Board under the bill dated 10. 5. 1989. Along with the writ petition, a stay petition was also filed. Notices were issued to the respondents on 18. 5. 1989 to show cause as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of. It was further ordered that the Board shall not disconnect the electricity connection on account of non-payment of the aforesaid amount. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. Arguments have been heard.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on M. P. S. E. B. and others V. Smt. Basanti Bai (1 ). He has further submitted that the bill dated 13. 5. 1989 was issued without any prior notice and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner nor any material was supplied nor any reason have been recorded. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Board has submitted that the meter has been tested in the presence of the petitioner and that he had signed in token thereof. Moreover, the petitioner has not moved to the Electrical Inspector and therefore, cannot take up this plea before this Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. It is admitted that when the meter had been tested on 15. 1. 1989 and thereafter, the petitioner had written to the respondent Board for getting the meter re-tested on 3. 2. 1989 and also deposited Rs. 200/- as testing charges, meaning thereby that the petitioner had not accepted and was not satisfied by the testing of the meter on 15. 1. 1989. Moreover, Sec. 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides that it is for the Electrical Inspector to decide the dispute whether the meter is correct or faulty and during the pendency of such dispute, the Board is not competent to issue supplementary bill or demand in respect thereof or disconnect the electricity connection for non-payment of such a demand, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Basanti Bai's case (supra ). In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The matter should be referred to the Electrical Inspector in accordance with Sec. 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the demand, if any, should be made after the decision of the Electrical Inspector. No order as to costs. .;