JUDGMENT - Mody A.N. J.-The plaintiff in this arbitration suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is a consumer of electricity and the defendant is the licensee who supplies electricity in the City of Bombay. 2. The plaintiff contends that the defendant sent an exorbitant bill in which the sum was calculated without any basis whatsoever and that the esti­ mate arrived at in the bill was done illegally and is exorbitant. According to the plaintiff this is a dispute which is referable to the Electrical Inspector under section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and that the matter should, therefore, be referred to arbitration under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. 3. Though from the facts stated in the petition it would appear that the plaintiff is possibly right when he complains about the high-handedness of the defendant but as this question is not relevant Mr Tulzapurkar for the defen­ dants was not heard and it is not possible to conclude whether the action is high handed or not. 4. It appears from the various provisions of the Act cited on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant, that the scheme of the Act is to provide two methods of determination of various disputes and differences and questions that may arise under the Act. One mode is to refer to arbitration and the other is to constitute an authority who can be considered quasi judicial authority. 5. Sections 7A(4), 14(3), 15(5), 16(3), 19(2), 2(4) and 22 speci­fically refer to the matters being decided by arbitration and section 52 makes provision as to how the arbitrator is to be appointed. Therefore, it is clear that whenever the Legislature intended that the matter should be referred to arbitration it has specifically so provided. All the above provisions use the word “arbitration”. In contradiction to this, section 26(6) which is relied on in the plaint and some other provisions, e. g. section 12, do not use the word “arbitration” but only say that matters mentioned therein are to be decided by named authorities. Section 26(6) provides that upon application by either party, the difference or dispute shall be decided by Electrical Inspector. Even the word “refer” is not used. The word used is 'application”. Section 26(6) provides that upon application by either party, the difference or dispute shall be decided by Electrical Inspector. Even the word “refer” is not used. The word used is 'application”. Normally, when one speaks of an arbitration, the words normally used are “refer to arbitration”, while in respect of proceedings before some tribunal, judicial or quasi judicial, the normal word is “appli­ cation”. 6. Apart from this section 21(4) furnishes a key to the solution of the question raised. Therein it is provided that if certain types of differences or disputes arise, they are to be referred to an electrical inspector and decided by him or if the licensee or the consumer so desires determined by arbitration. This section clearly shows that when decision is to be by named authority the intention is that, that authority is acting not as an arbitrator but otherwise than as an arbitrator and the proceedings before the authority are not in the nature of arbitration. The words must be interpreted in the same manner in other sections, including section 26 (6). 7. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is any agreement to refer to arbitration either by virtue of an agreement or because of statute and no order can be made under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. 8. On assumption that section 26(6) provides for reference to arbitra­ tion, Mr. Tulzapurkar has contended that the nature of the dispute is such that it cannot be referred to arbitration under that section. According to him section 26(6) contemplates reference of difference or dispute as to whether any meter is or is not correct while the questions sought to be referred include, inter alia, the question of deliberate damage to the meter and fraud of the plaintiff and that consequently in any event section 26(6) can have no applica­ tion. In view that I have taken it is not necessary to determine this question. 9. In the circumstances petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. In view of the above, interim petition also does not survive. No order on the interim petition. Petition dismissed.