JUDGMENT 1. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar dated 5.1.1990 whereby miscellaneous appeal filed by the petitioner against not granting injunction by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ganganagar dated 17.2.1987 was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff filed a suit No. 1221/86 on 28.6.1985 before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar alleging inter alia that electric connection No. NP 9-352 of load of 50 HP was in the name of his father Sardar Singh the petitioner is using and consuming electricity. The petitioner requested on 10.5.1985 to increase the load from 50 HP to 75 HP. On 4.7.1985 the concerned Assistant Engineer accorded permission for extension. On 5.7.1985 he deposited Rs. 1166/- in lieu of demand. On 5.8.1985 L Form was deposited for the increase of the work-load of his meter. It was also alleged that he has completed all the formalities regarding increase of workload, so it was the duty of the respondent to record above fact of extension of load in their record, but despite that petitioner received supplementary bill on the basis of increased 21 HP load, @ Civil Procedure Code, 19080/-Rupees per kilowatt as surcharge, whereas the plaintiff was liable to pay only Rs. 1296.90. Thus prayed that bill issued by the respondents to be declared void and the defendants be restrained from disconnection of his electric connection. Plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 for injunction. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner also filed a suit on 23.4.86 No. 221/86 for permanent injunction on the ground that respondents have wrongly issued bills for Rs. 38,666.48 paise on average basis for intervening period between 14.4.1983 to 30.10.1983, 27.2.1985 to 15.10.1985 and 16.11.1985 to 22.4.85. It was alleged that as meter was not recording actual consumption, so the bill could not be issued on average basis without there being any finding from the Electrical Inspector in view of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. He also moved an application for temporary injunction that in the meanwhile his electric connection may not be disconnected and further prayed that in case it is found that the meter is not recording actual consumption the matter may be referred to Electrical Inspector. During the pendency of the application, connection was disconnected on 28.10.1988 as such plaintiff moved necessary amendments. During the pendency of the application, connection was disconnected on 28.10.1988 as such plaintiff moved necessary amendments. The application for amendment was allowed. The defendant has filed reply to both the injunction applications alleging inter alia that the bills have been rightly issued. It was also submitted that during the inspection of the factory the electric meter was found defective and accordingly meter was changed on 23.5.1983. Again on inspection by Vigilance Inspector on 16.10.1985, it was found that due to defect, meter was only recording reading of ⅔rd consumption and thus the meter was again changed on 16.11.1985 and the petitioner had full knowledge. In the reply to the other application filed by the plaintiff, it was submitted that the plaintiff did not supply the capacitor and not deposited a sum of Rs. 940/- for the cost of the capacitor before 30.7.1986 for installation in the premises but used and consumed electricity though he was not entitled to use electricity and thus liable for penalty and no injunction could be granted. Since the reliefs claimed were not to disconnect the connection of the same meter in both the suits, the suits were consolidated. The Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the injunction application on 17.2.1987. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Ganganagar which was transferred to Addl. District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar. The Appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal on 5.1.1990 by a common order. Hence this revision. 4. I have heard Mr. S.L. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents, despite service.Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Trial Court has acted illegally in exercise of his jurisdiction and with material irregularity in dismissing the injunction application, without considering Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act and further submitted that without deciding the dispute whether the meter in question is recording correct and actual consumption or not by the Electrical Inspector and the defendant has no right to issue supplementary bill on average basis. Therefore, the respondents have no jurisdiction to disconnect the connection and thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and as such the orders of the Courts below are liable to be set aside in this revision. Therefore, the respondents have no jurisdiction to disconnect the connection and thus failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and as such the orders of the Courts below are liable to be set aside in this revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get injunction on this ground. Shri Jain also submitted that permission to increase workload from 50 HP to 75 HP was given on the application dated 10.5.1985 and in pursuance of demand note he has deposited the desired amount L Form, therefore, the amount demanded as surcharge for the period May, 1983 to April, 1984 amounting to Rs. 3116.33, after more than one year i.e. on 30.7.1986 on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the fees for capacitor and without installing the same has used and consumed the electricity, was illegal. Mr. Jain submitted that it was the duty of the respondents to record the fact of extension of load but on the other hand the defendant never informed that without depositing the fees and installing capacitor he could not enhance the electricity power from 50 HP to 75 HP even on the ground of permission alone, therefore, the plaintiff was not at fault and the Courts below have acted illegally and with material irregularity in not granting injunction. Mr. Jain has drawn my attention to Basantibai v. M.P. Electricity Board, AIR 1985 Madhya Pradesh 70 , which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, in the case reported in M.P.E.B. v. Smt. Basanti Bai, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 17 . 5. For correct and proper decision of the case it would be proper to reproduce Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : "S. 26(6). 5. For correct and proper decision of the case it would be proper to reproduce Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) : "S. 26(6). Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any matter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electricity Inspector; and where the matter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time not exceeding six months as the meter shall not, in supply in the opinion of such Inspector, have not been correct but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity : Provided that before either a licensee or consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall not give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do." 6. Perusal of this Section makes it clear that without getting any report, the non-petitioner has no jurisdiction to issue bill on average basis. The defendants have also admitted in their reply that they had changed the meter twice on 23.5.1984 and on 16.11.1985 within the knowledge of the petitioner as the meter was not working properly and recording only ⅔rd consumption. Under these circumstances when thee was a dispute, that the meter was not working and not giving correct reading, it was incumbent upon the appellant to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector for arriving at a correct finding regarding the correctness of the consumption of the reading during that period, and further unless in the opinion of Inspector the meter is ceased to be correct, the Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during such period not exceeding six months. Therefore, the Courts below have committed material irregularity in not granting temporary injunction. In M.P.E.B. v. Basantibai (supra), their Lordships observed as under:- "The dispute relates as to whether the meter is correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil mill of the respondent. Therefore, the Courts below have committed material irregularity in not granting temporary injunction. In M.P.E.B. v. Basantibai (supra), their Lordships observed as under:- "The dispute relates as to whether the meter is correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil mill of the respondent. So this dispute squarely falls within the provisions of the said Act and as such it has been rightly found by the High Court that it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. The appellant No. 1 is not competent pending the determination of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the impugned notice threatening disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it." 7. It is true that the discretionary orders passed by the Trial Court should not be lightly interfered with. But when the order is perverse or is contrary to the provisions of law, interference becomes inevitable for ends of justice. In the present case the Courts below have failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested by not granting temporary injunction without thee being any report by the Electrical Inspector regarding correctness of the meter in dispute as envisaged in Section 26(6). By issuing supplementary bills and disconnecting the electric supply, the non-petitioners have violated mandatory provisions and thus Courts below have committed illegality. In view of the facts of this case and the pronouncement of their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case cited above, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. So far as in other matter using and consuming the extended load from 50 to 75 HP is concerned, the plaintiff will supply the necessary capacitor within a fortnight. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply capacitor and stated at the Bar that the petitioner will give undertaking to make the payments of the disputed bills as per the decision of the pending suits in the Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply capacitor and stated at the Bar that the petitioner will give undertaking to make the payments of the disputed bills as per the decision of the pending suits in the Trial Court. 8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by the Courts below are set aside. The respondents are directed to connect and restore the electrical supply to the petitioner's meter L.P. 9-352 or another meter and capacitor within a fortnight from the receipt of the order. The petitioner will make payment of bills regularly. The respondent's claim with regard to payment due as supplementary bills or otherwise would be subject to the decision of the pending suits as per undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner to this effect before the Trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******