JUDGEMENT : H.L. Gokhale, J. 1. This Civil Revision Application has been filed by the Gujarat Electricity Board being aggrieved by the order dated 30th March, 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Pardi, District Valsad below Exh. 19 in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1995 and raises the question regarding the circumstances wherein Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act can be applied. 2. Facts leading to the present proceeding are as follows :- The opponent is running an ice factory in the industrial estate at Vapi situate in District Valsad for the last about eight years. On 14th November, 1994 the officers of the applicant found that the electricity meter of the opponent was tampered. They therefore took further steps to take it in possession after necessary Panchnama duly signed by the consumer. This led to a regular investigation in the laboratory about the condition of the meter. Again, a Panchnama was done in the presence of the representative of the opponent on 4th January, 1995. In that Panchnama various Irregularities were detected, namely, body seal of the meter was broken and a number of steel wires inside were found to be cut off and refixed, seals were tampered with, the top bearing was not in existence and was cut off. As a result thereof, the disc of the meter was unstable and dispute carrying the load, the gears of the meter were not moving correctly so as to record the correct consumption. The opponent feared disconnection, and therefore, filed Civil Suit No. 2/95. 3. The applicant filed written statement on 13th January, 1995 and pointed out therein the above state of affairs. They also pointed out that the tampering of the meter had led to the theft of electricity worth about Rs. 14 lakhs. A bill was also issued accordingly to the respondent in accordance with the terms of the contract between the parties. It is only thereafter that the applicant moved application of 16th January, 1995 submitting that the meter be sent for inspection to the Electricity Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. 14 lakhs. A bill was also issued accordingly to the respondent in accordance with the terms of the contract between the parties. It is only thereafter that the applicant moved application of 16th January, 1995 submitting that the meter be sent for inspection to the Electricity Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Section 26(6) reads as follows :- "26(6) : Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided upon the application of the 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 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 has 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 licencee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this sub-section, he shall give to the either party not less than seven days notice of his intention to do so. 4. It is material to note that this section deals with a situation where any dispute or difference arises between the parties as to whether any meter referred to in Subsection (1) of said section is or is not correct. It is material to note that in the instant case, in plaint there is no such averment that the meter of the applicant is not showing correct reading. It is only after filing of the written statement by the Electricity Board that such an application came to be filed on 16th January, 1995. It is on this application that the learned Judge passed an order allowing the same on 30th March, 1995 and being aggrieved by the said order the present Revision Application has been filed by the Electricity Board. 5. I have heard Mr. Pandya, the learned Counsel for the pensioner and Mr. Majmudar for the respondent. Mr. It is on this application that the learned Judge passed an order allowing the same on 30th March, 1995 and being aggrieved by the said order the present Revision Application has been filed by the Electricity Board. 5. I have heard Mr. Pandya, the learned Counsel for the pensioner and Mr. Majmudar for the respondent. Mr. Pandya, learned Counsel/appearing for the Electricity Board submitted that the learned Judge has acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity inasmuch as by allowing the application he has directed the Electricity Inspector to do something which is not within his jurisdiction under Section 26(6) of the aforesaid. The said Section has come to be interpreted earlier by the Supreme Court in the case of M.P.E.B. and Others v. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 71 and in Paragraph 9 thereof it has been in terms held as under : - "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 decide 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. If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter result in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply. Such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-section (6) of Section 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of Section 26(6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector has; therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. Such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-section (6) of Section 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of Section 26(6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector has; therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, can be decided by me Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act." (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the aforesaid clear cut observations of the Supreme Court, the order passed by the learned Judge was clearly in exercise of his jurisdiction with material irregularity. He could not have directed the Electrical Inspector to do something which he was not expected to do. Checking whether a meter is running fast or show is one thing and finding out whether there, is any tampering, fraud or otherwise, is something different. That is not within the jurisdiction of the Inspector under Section 26(6) as held by the Supreme Court. 7. Mr. Majmudar, learned Counsel appearing for the opponent submitted that firstly the revisional powers should be sparingly exercised and he relied in that behalf on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prosad, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 76. That judgment states that in exercise of revisional powers the High Court should not Interfere if the order is right or wrong or is in accordance with law or not, unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In view of the finding as above, namely, that the Inspector did not have the jurisdiction as Interpreted by the Supreme Court it will have to be held that the learned Judge has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity when he directed the Inspector to do something outside his jurisdiction and therefore, the exercise of revisional powers by this Court is called for. 8. No other contention was raised by Mr. Majmudar apart from the one mentioned above. 9. When the matter was heard earlier, the learned Judge who admitted the same had erected the learned Civil Judge to decide the interim application for injunction (Exh. 5) expeditiously. 8. No other contention was raised by Mr. Majmudar apart from the one mentioned above. 9. When the matter was heard earlier, the learned Judge who admitted the same had erected the learned Civil Judge to decide the interim application for injunction (Exh. 5) expeditiously. It appears that the learned Judge, has heard and rejected the same on 20th October, 1995. It will be for the parties concerned to take appropriate action thereafter. 10. The Revision Application is allowed and the order dated 30th March, 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) below Exh. 19 in Regular Civil Suit No. 2/95 is set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute, though with no order as to costs. Revision allowed.