JUDGMENT M. M. Pareed Pillay, Ag. C. J. 1. Appellant is the petitioner in O. P. 3051 of 1994. He is a consumer of electrical energy from the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was served with bills for the period August 1993 to January 1994 for Rs. 8,387/-. He made enquiries with the respondents regarding the bill and disputed it. No definite reply was given. Appellant challenged Ext. P2 bill on the ground that the energy recorded in the meter was not proper. 2. Contention of the respondents is that on inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad it was found that 'B' phase of the meter was not recording the current passing through it on account of faulty connection and hence the appellant was charged 50% of the recorded consumption in addition "from June, 1993 onwards as provided in Clause.42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electric Energy framed by the Board and so the supplementary bill issued to him is proper. 3. Learned Single Judge held that though there was no defect in the meter, the connection given to the appellant was faulty. Contention of the respondents that on inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad, it was found that 'B' phase of the meter was not recording the current passing through it on the account of faulty connection and this fault was rectified and thereafter the current consumption increased by almost 1/3rd and it was on that basis the supplementary bill was issued was accepted by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge further held that under S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, a reference could be made to the Electrical Inspector only when a dispute arises as to whether any meter is correct or not and if there was faulty connection and one phase was not working, owing to that fact, it cannot be said that there was mistake in the meter and the mistake if any should be attributed to the faulty connection. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards Ext. P2 bill within a month and observed that he may file appeal against Ext. P2 within a period of three weeks. 4. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards Ext. P2 bill within a month and observed that he may file appeal against Ext. P2 within a period of three weeks. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Anti Power Theft Squad who have conducted inspection in the premises of the appellant found that one phase of the meter was not recording the current passing through it owing to some defect and in fact directed the third respondent to replace the meter and hence it cannot be held that the meter was not defective. Appellant's counsel further contended that as the meter was replaced as per the directions of the Anti Power Theft Squad it is apparent that it was defective and hence the contention of the respondents otherwise is totally untenable. 5. S.26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 reads : "Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-s.(1) is 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 to do so." In a case where an electrical meter is not registering Correct consumption of energy on account of the defectiveness in the wiring, S.26(6) cannot be attracted. In a case where only the meter is defective, the question of arbitration by the electrical Inspector would arise. In a case where it is found out that there is defective wiring, who was responsible for the same is not relevant under S.26(6). In other words, in cases where there is defective wiring and as a result of it the meter has not properly recorded the energy, S.26(6) cannot be attracted. In a case where it is found out that there is defective wiring, who was responsible for the same is not relevant under S.26(6). In other words, in cases where there is defective wiring and as a result of it the meter has not properly recorded the energy, S.26(6) cannot be attracted. It can be attracted only in a case where the meter is defective. 6. Relying on M/s. Southern India Marine Products Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. KSEB and another ( 1994 (2) KLJ 773 ) learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the enquiry by Electrical Inspector could only be with regard to the defective nature of the meter and defect in the wiring or giving connection to meter resulting in the meter not registering the correct consumption of energy and in other cases S.26(6) is not attracted. The finding of this Court was to the effect that the meter itself was correct but the connection given to it was in a defective manner. The said decision has no application to the fact's of the case in hand as Ext. P4 shows that the power meter installed in the premises was not recording consumption in 'B' phase. There is no material before us to hold that there was any defect in the wiring system. It is also pertinent to note that in fact respondents have changed the meter. As that is an admitted fact, it would really fortify the case of the appellant that the defect was really in the meter and that necessitated the change of the same. 7. Counsel for the appellant relied on Topasa Ramasa Patil v. Karnataka Electricity Board (AIR 1989 Karnataka 279) where the Court held: - "In matters of slow or faulty recording of the meter it is only the Electrical Inspector who is authorised to decide the dispute. If the meter is not working properly that is undoubtedly a dispute and this dispute has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector. Therefore, if the Electricity Board wants to raise a bill in regard to the actual consumption of energy not correctly recorded by the meter, it has to approach the Electrical inspector and get the same tested and settled. It cannot unilaterally raise a bill without reference to the Electrical Inspector as provided under S.26 (6) of the Electricity Act." 8. Therefore, if the Electricity Board wants to raise a bill in regard to the actual consumption of energy not correctly recorded by the meter, it has to approach the Electrical inspector and get the same tested and settled. It cannot unilaterally raise a bill without reference to the Electrical Inspector as provided under S.26 (6) of the Electricity Act." 8. In M.P.E.B. v. Basantibai ( AIR 1988 SC 71 ) Supreme Court held that in a case where the dispute relates to whether the electrical meter is correct one or it is faulty not recording the actual electrical energy consumed, the dispute squarely fells within the provisions of the Electricity Act and as such, it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute. The Supreme Court made the position clear that pending the dispute Electricity Board cannot issue supplementary bill or threaten disconnection of supply of electricity. This being the legal position and as we have found that there is no material to find defect in the wiring system but the defect lies in the meter, Ext. P2 cannot be sustained. As the appellant became aware of the faulty nature of the meter only on getting Ext. P2 bill and as the meter has since been replaced, issuance of Ext. P2 bill in a unilateral manner cannot have any justification. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and Ext. P2 is quashed. The writ appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.