Honble SINGHAL, J. – The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Bill dated 20.3.1991 by which a demand of Rs. 2,30,558.22 and for Rs 17,140.76 P for electricity duty has been created. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the factory of the petitioner is a seasonal one and information was sent on 1.6.89 to the Executive Engineer that the factory shall remain closed w.e.f. 1.7.1989. This information was not received and by the communication dated 20.3.90 the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 44,827.65 upto March 31,90. The petitioner submitted a representation against this demand but instead of reducing the demand, another letter was issued creating the demand or Rs. 2,47,698.98. The said letter was issued on the basis that the body and terminal seals of the meters was found tampered. It was on the basis of tampering with the seals that the bills for the period from April, 1986 to August, 1986, April 1987 to August, 1987 and March 26,1988 to June, 1988 were raised. A suit in the civil court was filed in respect of the disconnection on 29.7.89 at which time the total dues were stated to the extent of Rs. 28,904.50. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reference under Sec. 27 of the Electricity Act has been made to the Electrical Inspector and a demand at the most for a period of six months could have been made. It is also submitted that in accordance with the General Conditions of Supply notified by the RSEB under clause 19 it his been provided that the accuracy of the amount of energy supplied to a consumer shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter which may be hired from the Board or purchased by the consumer at the latters option. In the latter case, the make and type of the mater shall be subject to the approval of the Board. Where the meter is hired from the Board, the Board shall keep the meter correct and in default of its doing so the consumer shall for so long as the default continues cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter. Where the meter is hired from the Board, the Board shall keep the meter correct and in default of its doing so the consumer shall for so long as the default continues cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter. It is submitted that since the liability was of the Board to keep the meter correct, therefore, the provisions of rule 19 have not been complied with and the petitioner cannot be made liable. It is also submitted that the notice has been issued after five years and that too without providing opportunity and as such it is against the principles of natural justice. (2). Learned counsel for the respondents has come late. It is observed that the respondents or their advocates are expected to be present at the time when the case is called and not at their sweet-will. The contention of the counsel for the respondents that there are 10 courts and therefore it is not possible to be present when the case is called is not acceptable. The respondents or their counsel should make their own arrangements so that the court must know that the case is being represented by an advocate. They cannot come at their option whenever they like. (3). I have considered over the arguments. The judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in M/s Modern Syntex (India) Ltd.vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Others. (2), is not applicable to the facts of this case. In that case the genuineness of the meter was not in dispute. It is a case where the allegation is that the electric meter was tampered with by the petitioner. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MPEB and others. vs. Smt. Basantibai (2), has also no application to the facts of the present case because there the dispute was whether the electric meter was correct one or faulty not recording the actual electrical energy consumed and the allegation that the seal was tampered with cannot restrict the Board from issuing supplementary bill. vs. Smt. Basantibai (2), has also no application to the facts of the present case because there the dispute was whether the electric meter was correct one or faulty not recording the actual electrical energy consumed and the allegation that the seal was tampered with cannot restrict the Board from issuing supplementary bill. The decision in the case of N.J. Cyrise and Another vs. K.S.E. Board and Others (3), has also been relied upon where no facts have been given and in the headnote it mentioned that demands for very large amount by way of additional charge in violation of principles of natural justice cannot be made. This judgment cannot be considered as the facts of that case are not before this Court. The above decisions which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in respect of the case where there was dispute with regard to accuracy of the meter and not that the seal was broken. If the meter is not giving correct reading and is faulty then the question may arise for decision by the Electrical Inspector but the provisions of Sec. 26 of the Act cannot be made applicable to a situation where the seal itself is tampered with. As a matter of fact in case where the seal is tampered with one after the other the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by this Court. The invoking of the powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and a person who has committed theft of electricity in the manner by way of breaking the seal of the meter cannot have legal protection. Various decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable nor the assistance from the provisions of Sec. 26 or rule 19 could be taken by the petitioner. Under the Rajasthan Government Electrical Under taking (Dues Rcovery) Act, 1960 the outstanding dues for a period of 6 years could be recovered. The limitation of six months or three months as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. (4). Under the Rajasthan Government Electrical Under taking (Dues Rcovery) Act, 1960 the outstanding dues for a period of 6 years could be recovered. The limitation of six months or three months as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. (4). At the time of checking by Vigilance Squad of the RSEB on 7.6.87 it was found in the presence of the petitioner that all the meters were not working and consumption load of 47 KW was not being recorded. The disk of meter Nos. 2 and 3 was roating but the reading were not increasing. The body of the terminal seal of the three single phase meters provided was lying tampered. The said report was signed by the representative of the petitioner. Another spot checking was done by the AEN (ST) on 10.6.88 and it was found that the body seal of the meters was tampered. with. It may be observed that the limitation as aforesaid for the reasons discussed above is of 6 years, but the respondent was completely negligent after checking/inspection of the factory of the petitioner on 7.6.87 and 10.6.88 and the revised bill was prepared on 20.3.91. This shows how the efficiency the respondents are observing in dealing with such type of cases where one after another seal is broken. The Chairman shall conduct an enquiry against the officer who was respon- sible in not taking timely action and disciplinary action against the said officer, and compliance report shall be submitted to this court within three months and a separate file shall be opened for that purpose. (4). There may be a question whether the demand which has been calculated by the respondent is correct or not. This is factual aspect of the matter. The peti- tioner has remedy to file an appeal under rule 29. The provisions of rule 29 are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. It is not a case where this court should exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. If it is found that there is in fact repeated tampering with the seal, then it is not for this court to interfere or to grant any relief. It is not a case where this court should exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. If it is found that there is in fact repeated tampering with the seal, then it is not for this court to interfere or to grant any relief. Number of writ petitions are being filed one after another where tampering with the seal is involved and so far as the provisions of Sec.26 are concerned, a reference could be made to the Inspector where the meter is faulty but if the seal is tampered it has been held in the cases relied by the petitioner that the provisions of section 26 are not applicable where the reference is required to be made. No relief can be given with regard to quantum. The petitioner shall be free to move for condonation of delay. (5). Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.