JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is an Electric Consumer has challenged the demand of Rs. 15,001.98, Annexure-C and the notice dated 26.9.85, Annexure-M, threatening dis-connection. The demand is based on a report of the vigilance dated 17.11.84, Annexure-A, which speaks of the review of reading book & billing details which indicated that the meter was replaced in Feb 84, as, it had gone defective since Sept 83 and it was recording low consumption, which then increased after replacement of meter, as such the revised demand was proposed from Sept' 83 to Feb 84. As a consequence of that, demand was made by taking average consumption in view of Clause 19 (III) (a) of General Conditions for Supply of Electrical Energy and scale of Miscellaneous and General Charges. The petitioner contends that after the demand the petitioner made a representation vide Annexure- B dated 24.11.84 and also submitted that the dispute be resolved in accordance with section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. In reply to that Annexure-M was sent directing the petitioner to furnish the pattern of working of the water pump month-wise, i.e. daily working hours, effect of rainy season on the drawal of electricity through the connection & other relevant details, and that information was required within a week, till then the demand on account of the checking was kept in abeyance. However, the dispute was not referred for a decision of the Electrical Inspector and a notice of disconnection after seven days was issued. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by this petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. Shri V.S. Dabir, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is an admitted fact that the meter was defective, the dispute ought to have been referred for decision of the Electrical Inspector in accordance with section 26 (6) of the· Electricity Act of 1910, a decision of Supreme Court in case of M.P.E.B. v. Basantibai (AIR 1988 SC p. 71) was pressed into service. Shri M.L. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand submitted that this is not a case where the meter was defective but infact the meter was found burnt, therefore, in terms of Sub Clause (iii) (a) at Clause 19 as the meter ceased to function, hence, the billing department by taking average of the electricity supplied during preceding 3 months in which the said meter was not defective as could be evident by the chart of electricity consumption for a period of 7 months preceding to meter becoming defective Annexure-E, the average billing was made, and therefore the demand is justified. After hearing the counsel I am of the opinion that it is a case of meter being defective which is clear from vigilance report and other correspondence, wherein it is not stated that the meter was burnt, therefore powers under Sub Clause (iii) (a) of Clause 19 could not have been exercised, but, in such a case where the meter is found defective without its tampering with, when a dispute arises in respect of a demand the dispute ought to have been referred to the Electrical Inspector in accordance with section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, who could have decided the dispute, see Basanti Bai's case (supra). Therefore, the demand made by the respondent Board cannot be sustained and has to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The Board is directed to act according to the provisions of section 26 (6) of the Act. However, at this stage Shri Jaiswal submits that now it is not possible for the Board to refer the dispute as the meter is being old one, it may not be available, therefore, the Board will hear the petitioner as the petitioner has himself made a representation vide Annexure-F dated 19.4.85, to this the learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. In view of this the petition is allowed with a direction to the respondent Board to afford an opportunity to the petitioner of hearing and take a decision afresh in accordance with law on the demand so made. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in the manner aforesaid with no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. The Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, shall stand discharged.