JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. Petitioner is a company carrying on business of manufacturing domestic and industrial thread and fur that purpose has established its factory at village Pipalsaya, district Nainital. On 27-10-1984 the Petitioner was sanctioned 2000KVA power load by the U.P. State Electricity Board (here-in-after referred to as the Board) and an agreement in that connection was executed between the Petitioner and the Board on 25-7-1985. An electricity meter was installed at the Petitioner's factory on 7--2-1986. By a fresh agreement dated 28-4-1987 the power load of the Petitioner's factory was reduced from 2000 KVA to 1050 KVA. The Petitioner had been paying the electricity dues, according to the bills issued by the Board on the basis of the meter reading. On the basis of the inspection report dated 3-9-198/a notice dated 7-9-1987 was issued by the Executive Engineer of the Board to the Petitioner casting doubt about the accuracy of the meter installed at the Petitioners' factory and proposing to install a check meter. It was also mentioned in that letter that the electricity bills are being prepared provisionally on the basis of (he meter reading which are liable to be revised and finalised subsequently. The Petitioner opposed the aforesaid proposal and asserted the correctness of the meter. On 30-11-1987 the check meter was installed at the Petitioners' unit by the Board. The Petitioner by letter dated 25-3-1988 requested for testing of the check meter and claims to have deposited the testing fee also. No action having been taken on the aforesaid request the Petitioner sent reminders. But the check meter was not tested. However, by a letter dated 26-4-1988 the Executive Engineer informed the Petitioner that the check meter's results show that the original meter installed at the Petitioners' unit was defective, as a consequence of which payment for the period from May, 1987 to 30-11-1987 shall be made on the basis of the check meters' reading in accordance with Regulation 21 (ii) of the Electricity Supply (Consumers) Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). For the period prior to May, 1987 from the date of connection, the Petitioner was informed that the assessment shall be made in accordance with Regulation 21 (iii) and for that purpose the Petitioner was called upon to give the necessary information. By notice dated 17-5-1988 and additional bill for Rs. For the period prior to May, 1987 from the date of connection, the Petitioner was informed that the assessment shall be made in accordance with Regulation 21 (iii) and for that purpose the Petitioner was called upon to give the necessary information. By notice dated 17-5-1988 and additional bill for Rs. 10,70,886,82 for the period from May 1987 to November, 1987, was issued to the Petitioner requiring him to make the payment of the said amount by 6-6-1988, failing which the electric supply was threatened to be disconnected. It is against these two notices dated April 26, 1988 and May 17, 1988 that writ petition no 10379 of 1988 has been filed by the Petitioner, praying for their quashing and for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to take any action on the basis of these notices: 2. In the aforesaid writ petition this Court on 15-6-1988 passed an interim order directing the Petitioner to take steps for decision by the Electrical Inspector u/s 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner accordingly made an application dated 9-7-1988 for getting the dispute decided by the Electrical Inspector. By letter dated 26-8-1988 the Petitioner was informed by the Chief Electrical Inspector that the testing bench was out of order and is under repairs and testing of the meter would be carried out only after it is repaired. 3. During the pendency of the above writ petition the Board issued additional demand for payment of the electricity dues for the months of June and July 1988, based on the check meter readings The Petitioner filed writ petition No. 16723 of 1988, challenging the said demand. The Petitioner was granted an interim order retraining the disconnection of the electric supply subject to the payment of electricity dues by the Petitioner on the basis of original meter reading and furnishing security and bank guarantee for Rupees One Lakh every month, Petitioners case is that he has made the payment throughout the period of dispute regularly on the basis of the reading of the original meter and has been furnishing the bank guarantee and security as directed by this Court. Another demand notice dated 14-6-1990 for additional sum of Rs. 5,54,963.64 as electricity dues for the period upto July, 1988, on the basis of check meter reading, was issued to the Petitioner by the Board. Another demand notice dated 14-6-1990 for additional sum of Rs. 5,54,963.64 as electricity dues for the period upto July, 1988, on the basis of check meter reading, was issued to the Petitioner by the Board. Against this demand notice the Petitioner has filed writ petition No. 16325 of 1990. 4. In the meantime the Chief Electrical Inspector checked the meter installed at Petitioners' unit on 28 -11 -1989 and found it defective. He accordingly submitted his report dated 11-12-1989. The Chief Electrical Inspector has also made estimate dated 10-10-1990 u/s 26(6). The Electrical Inspector has fixed rates of electricity dues for the period of six months only. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that all these writ petitions be allowed and decided in accordance with the assessment order dated 10-10-1990 passed by the Chief Electrical Inspector and the Petitioner be required to make the payment of the electricity dues accordingly for the period in dispute Learned Counsel for the Electricity Board has however, argued that the Chief Electrical Inspector has power under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act to make estimate of the electricity dues for the period not exceeding six months and the Board, as such cannot be compelled to charge dues on the basis of estimate determined by the Chief Electrical Inspector for any period beyond six months, which is the maximum limit fixed under the aforesaid provisions. 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 26 provides for ascertainment of the amount of energy supplied to the consumers by the Board by means of correct meter In case there is dispute or difference regarding the correctness of the meter, the same is liable to be decided under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the Act, upon the application filed by either of the parties, by Electrical Inspector: and if such Inspector finds that 'he meter has ceased to be correct, he has to ascertain the period during which the meter was not correct and has also to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during such period not exceeding six months. Sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 26 of the Act, being relevant, are reproduced below: (1) In the absence of an agreement to 'he contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contaired in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter; Provided that the licensee may require the consumer to give him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a meter. (6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter 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 the opinion of such Inspector, have 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 a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days notice of his intention so to do. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamala Shanker Upadhya Vs. State Electricity Board, U.P. and Another, AIR 1977 All 185 , while considering the provisions of Section 26 of the Act, has laid down as follows: Sub-section (6) of Section 26 lays down the following procedure which should be adopted in case of sick meters or meters which are not correct: 1. In the event of controversy as to whether or not a meter is not correct, it must be referred to an Electrical Inspector. 2. Such reference can be made upon an application made by either party. 3. The Electrical Inspector shall decide as to whether the meter has ceased to be correct. 4. In the event of controversy as to whether or not a meter is not correct, it must be referred to an Electrical Inspector. 2. Such reference can be made upon an application made by either party. 3. The Electrical Inspector shall decide as to whether the meter has ceased to be correct. 4. Where it is detected that the meter is not correct the Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during the period of dispute, 5. That where such estimate has to be made, this can be utilized only for a maximum period of six months during which the alleged defect of the meter lasts. It is evident from the above provision that this procedure of calculating the estimated amount of energy on the basis of past consumption is not intended to be made applicable to a period exceeding six months The object seems to be that expeditious steps must be taken for removing the defects of the meter and if during the period the defect continues, this method of proceeding on the basis of estimate may be resorted to. It is thus apparent that whenever there is difference or dispute regarding the correctness of the meter, installed at the consumers' premises, the same is liable to be decided by the Electrical Inspector alone under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 and if the Electrical Inspector finds the meter sick, he has to fix the period during which the meter was sick and also to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer during this period, but this estimate shall be valid only for the period not exceeding six months. As the power to decide the dispute about the correctness of the meter installed at the consumer's premises vests in Electrical Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 26, it is not open to the Board to assign that power to itself. It may be open to the Board to install the check meter to find out the correctness of the meter originally installed at the consumer's premises but it is not open to it to send bills on that basis for the period of dispute. The Boards' decision about the correctness of meter is not binding on the consumer and what is binding on him is the decision of the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 26. The Boards' decision about the correctness of meter is not binding on the consumer and what is binding on him is the decision of the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 26. Under these circumstances, if the Board issues any additional bills for the disputed period, it is not liable to be paid by the consumer. The consumer is required to make payment provisionally, during the period of dispute, on the same basis on which payment was being made before the dispute has arisen, After the Electrical Inspector has given his decision about the correctness of the meter, the consumer, is required to pay, if the meter is found to be incorrect, on the basis of estimate of Electrical Inspector; but such estimate cannot be for the period exceeding six months. 7. Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and Others Vs. Smt. Basantibai, (1988) 1 SCC 23 , has laid down that whether any meter is/or not correct, has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector and if the meter is not found correct the Inspector has to make estimate of electrical energy supplied to the consumer during the period not exceeding six months. Relevant extract from this judgment is reproduced below: It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is for the Inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not and in case the Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during a period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same. In the instant case it appears from the report of the Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one phase of the meter was not working at all, so there is undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question is a correct one or a faulty meter and this dispute has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector whose decision will be final. It is also evident from the said provision that till the decision is made no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board estimating the energy supplied to the consumer, as the Board is not empowered to do so by the said Act. The something was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the later part of its judgment when it was laid down that the electric supply cannot be disconnected by the Board for non payment of the supplementary bill for the period of dispute. The relevant passage is quoted below: In the instant case the dispute relates to whether the meter is correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual energy consumed in running the oil Mills 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 not 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. The Board is also not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the Respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy. 8. In the instant case the dispute about the correctness of the meter arose on 7-9-1987 when the Petitioner was informed about the sickness of the meter by the Board and continued up to 10-10-1990 when the Chief Electrical Inspector made the estimate under Sub-section (6) of Section 26. 8. In the instant case the dispute about the correctness of the meter arose on 7-9-1987 when the Petitioner was informed about the sickness of the meter by the Board and continued up to 10-10-1990 when the Chief Electrical Inspector made the estimate under Sub-section (6) of Section 26. For the aforesaid period of dispute, it was not open to the Board to ask the Petitioner to pay the additional bills prepared on the basis of the reading of the check meter or any other basis, because as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (supra), the Board does not have such a power. 9. In the connection learned Counsel for the Electricity Board has placed reliance on Resolution 21 which also provides for determination of the amount of energy supplied to the consumer by the Board during the period when the meter remained sick. Regulation 21 so far as it is relevant is reproduced below: 21. Meters--(1) The amount of energy supplied to a consumer, or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by meter or meters fixed in the premises by the supplier. The meter shall originally be installed at the point of entry to the building and in such manner as to make it easily and conveniently accessible to the Suppliers' representative for the purpose of reading and inspection. (ii) If the consumer disputes the accuracy of any meter, he may upon giving notice together with payment of the prescribed fee, have the meter tested by the Supplier. In the event of the meter being found, on such test or on routine tests as may be arranged by the supplier, to be inaccurate beyond the limits of error, allowed under the Act and the rules for the time being in force, the testing fee shall be refunded to the consumer and the bills for the last three months preceding the date of payment of testing fee shall be modified in accordance with the test results. In case the Supplier desires to check the accuracy of any meter, the bills for last three months preceding the date of installation of check meter shall be modified in accordance with the test results. In case the Supplier desires to check the accuracy of any meter, the bills for last three months preceding the date of installation of check meter shall be modified in accordance with the test results. (iii) (a) If at any time a meter becomes derective of ceases to register the consumption and no theft or malpractice is suspected, the electrical energy consumed by the consumer during the period the meter remained defective or stopped shall be determined on the basis of average consumption of the proceeding three consecutive months. (b) If, however, the conditions in regard to use of electricity did not remain the same during such period of three preceding months with the period during which the meter ceased to function or became defective, the electricity consumed by the consumer may be determined on the basis of connected load and hours of usage of electricity. In case of industrial consumers due regard shall be given to production figure and conditions of working during the period under question. (c) The supplier may inspect and test any meter installed at the consumer's premises, and for that purpose, if the supplier considers necessary, take off and remove the meter to its laboratory after replacing it by another meter. Before entering into the premises, the representative of the supplier will disclose their identity and their intention for the entry to the consumer or his representative available on the spot. (vii) If the consumer opts to get the meter checked up through Electrical Inspector to Government Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the provision of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, the consumer shall not withhold payment of the bills as are sent by the supplier. Any default in payment of bills will make the consumer liable for disconnection. Relying on the aforesaid provisions the learned Counsel for the Board argued that even if the matter is not referred to the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 by either of the parties, it is open to the Board itself to decide the correctness of the meter by installing check meter in the consumers' premises and charge the consumer on the basis laid down in that Regulation. In short the submission is that if the Board proceeds to determine and charge electricity dues under Regulation 21, it is not necessary for it to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector and it is exactly what the Board has done in the instant case, as it has made estimate under Clause (ii) of Regulation 21 on the basis of check meter and has called upon the consumer to supply the necessary details to assess the dues under sub Clause (b) and (c) of Clause (iii) of that Regulation. 10. The Regulations have been made u/s 79 or the Electricity (supply) Act, 1948 Section 49 makes provision for sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than the licensees. Section 49, being relevant is reproduced below: 49. Provision for the sale of electricity by the Board to persons other than licensees (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of regulation, if any, made in this behalf, the Board may supply electricity to any person not being a licenses upon such term and conditions as the Board thinks fit and may for the purposes of such supply frame uniform tariffs. (2) In fixing the uniform tariffs, the Board shall have regard to all or any of the following factors, namely: (a) the nature of the supply and the purposes for which it is required; (b) the co-ordinated development of the supply and distribution of electricity within the State in the most efficient and economical manner, with particular reference to such development in areas not for the time being served or adequately served by the licensee; (c) the simplification and standardisation of methods and rates of charges for such supplies; (d) the extension and cheapening of supplies of electricity to sparsely developed area. (3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall derogate from the power of the Board, if it considers it necessary or expedient to fix different tariffs for the supply of electricity to any person not being a licenses, having regard to the geographical position or any area, the nature of the supply and purpose for which supply is required and any other relevant factors. (4) In fixing the tariffs and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity, the Board shall not show undue preference to any person. Section 79 gives power to the Board to make Regulations. (4) In fixing the tariffs and terms and conditions for the supply of electricity, the Board shall not show undue preference to any person. Section 79 gives power to the Board to make Regulations. Clause (j) of this section enables the Board to frame regulations for laying down "Principles" governing supply of the electricity by the Board to the persons other than the licensees u/s 49." Section 49 empowers the Board to supply electricity to a consumer upon such term and conditions as the Board thinks fit and for that purpose the Board is authorised to frame uniform tariffs. 11. In view of the aforesaid provisions it is open to the Board to frame regulations laying down the terms and conditions upon which the electricity supply is to be made by the Board to the consumer It is also open to the Board to lay down the principles governing the said supply. But in view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 the Board is a licensee having powers and obligations of a licensee under the Act. The said Section is reproduced below 26. Board to have powers and obligations of licensee under Act 9 of 1910 : Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall, in respect of the whole State, have all the powers and obligations of a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) and this Act shall be deemed to be the licence of the Board for the purposes of that Act: Provided that nothing in Sections 3 - 11, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 21 and (Section 22, Sub-section (2) of Section 22A and Sections 23 and 27 of that Act or in (Clauses 1 to v. Clause VII and Clauses IX to XII) of the Schedule to that Act relating to the duties and obligations of a licensee shall apply to the Board; (Provided further that the provisions of Clause VI of the Schedule to that Act shall apply to the Board in respect of that area where distribution mains have been laid by the Board and the supply of energy through only of them has commenced) Section 26 of the Act, being one of the provisions which governs the supply of electricity by licensee to the consumer, is fully applicable to the Board supplying the electricity to the consumer. As such in view of the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 26, it is not open to the Board to assign to itself, a power which is vested in the Electrical Inspector by the said provisions. It is also not open to the Board to over ride the provisions of Section 26 of the Act by making Regulations u/s 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, Regulation 21 as such has to be sub-servient to the provisions of the Act. 12. As mentioned hereinbefore if the meter is found defective, the consumer is required to pay the electricity dues according to the estimate of the Electrical Inspector u/s 26(6) of the Act but such an estimate can only to for a maximum period of six months. If the dispute about the correctness of the meter has continued for more than six months either on account of want of any application for reference to the Electrical Inspector by either party or on account of omission on the part of the Electrical Inspector to decide the dispute expeditiously, the power of Electrical Inspector to make estimate under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 cannot be extended beyond the period of six months. The time limit specified by Sub-section (6) of Section 26 of the phrase "during such time, not exceeding six months," refers to the period of sickness of the meter during which the electricity was supplied to the consumer and for which the Inspector is to make the estimate. It is not a period of limitation for making estimate by the Inspector Although the Inspector can make an estimate for maximum period of six months but if the dispute has persisted for more than six months, the payment of electricity dues for the remaining period of dispute has to be made on a basis which is fair and reasonable. When the estimate prepared by the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 is not challenged, there cannot be more fair and reasonable basis for paying the dues than the estimate itself. In the instant case both the parties have accepted the estimate prepared by the Inspector. Under the circumstances for the whole period of dispute from 7-9-1987 to 10-10-1990 the electricity dues are to be paid by the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid estimate. 13. In the instant case both the parties have accepted the estimate prepared by the Inspector. Under the circumstances for the whole period of dispute from 7-9-1987 to 10-10-1990 the electricity dues are to be paid by the Petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid estimate. 13. The Petitioners have been paying the electricity dues throughout the period of dispute, on the basis of the reading of the original meter and have also been furnishing the security and hank guarantee every month, in accordance with the interim order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 16723 of 1988. In Writ Petition No. 10379 of 1988 the electricity bills for the period from May, 1987 to 30-11-1987, demanding payment of the additional amount have been impugned. The dispute about the correctness of the meter was raised for the first time by the Board by its letter dated 7-9-1987. Any additional bill requiring the Petitioner to make payment for the period after 7-9-1987 cannot be issued by the Board as discussed before The payment of the dues by the Petitioner prior to 7-9-1987 his to be made in accordance with the meter reading of the original meter. 14. These writ Petitions are partly allowed. The demand, which is contained in Annexures VIII and XI to Writ Petition No. 13079 of 1988 cannot be sustained and are quashed. Demands for the months of May, June and July, 1988, which are impugned in Writ Petition No 16723 of 1988 and the notice of demand up to July, 1988 impugned in Writ Petition No. 16235 of 1990 are also quashed. 15. The Board will now prepare fresh bills of electricity dues to be paid by the Petitioner for the period of dispute from 7-9-1987 to 10-10-1990 mentioned above, in accordance with the estimate prepared by the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section (6) of Section 26 and serve the same on the Petitioner as far as possible within three months from today The Petitioner will make the payment of the said bills within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the bills. The amount which has already been deposited by the Petitioner for the aforesaid period on the basis of the reading of the original meter shall be adjusted by the Board while preparing the fresh bills. The amount which has already been deposited by the Petitioner for the aforesaid period on the basis of the reading of the original meter shall be adjusted by the Board while preparing the fresh bills. Till the payment is made by the Petitioner for the period 7-9-1987 to 10-10-1990 on the basis of fresh bills prepared by the Board as per direction contained in this judgment, the bank guarantee and security already furnished by the Petitioner shall not be discharged and will be kept in tact Payment: for the period subsequent to 10-10-1990 shall be made by the Petitioner in accordance with the reading of the new meter installed by the Board at the Petitioner's factory. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, these shall be no order as to costs.