JUDGMENT Satyabrata Sinha, J. Although this appeal was preferred by C.E.S.C. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and others against an interlocutory order dated 12th March, 1996 passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder this Company was directed to raise a bil1 only on the basis of consumption of electrical energy recorded in the Electro Mechanical Tariff Meter (EMTM), but as requested by the learned counsel for the parties, the entire writ petition was heard by this Bench. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The writ petitioner was granted electrical connection for supply of high tension electrical energy. For the purpose of recording consumption of electrical energy, an Electro Mechanical Tariff Meter (hereinafter referred to as EMTM) was installed. Thereafter one Static Electronic Meter was installed on 5.12.1995. The said meter is said to be a sophisticated electronic device. 3. The writ petitioner, in the writ petition inter alia, questioned a bill raised for the month of January, 1996 in relation to its factory premises situated at 38/39, Jaibibi House, Gusury, Howrah as contained in Annexure 'D' thereto, inter alia, on the ground that the company had no right to issue any bill on the basis of the reading recorded in the Static Electronic Meter which, was installed as a check meter only. 4. As a question arose as to whether the company has any right to instal any such new meter and whether the writ petitioner had tampered with the EMTM, by an order dated 4.6.1996 this court requested the Chief Electric Inspector to submit a report as to which of the two meters had been giving correct reading being free from any interference/tampering. The Chief Electric Inspector was also requested to scrutinise the off loaded data from these two static meters to determine whether the static meters was permitted to record the consumption of energy without interference/tampering since their installation and in the event there is any evidence of interference or tampering of the static meters, he was further requested to assess the extent of unauthorised consumption during the period in question. Such tests were to be carried out for a long period preferably ranging for a period of 4 to 6 hours in presence of the parties. Pursuant to the said direction an inspection was held. Such tests were to be carried out for a long period preferably ranging for a period of 4 to 6 hours in presence of the parties. Pursuant to the said direction an inspection was held. A copy of the report was served upon the writ petitioner and they filed an objection thereto. 5. From the records, it appears that on 30.6.1992 an inspection at factory premises was held and it was revealed that the plastic seals on meter body and VT secondary fuse box was spurious. On 2.7.1992 the supplier/licensee was informed by the writ petitioner No.1 that smoke was emanating from the switch controlling supply to the consumer. An inspection was held on 2.7.1992 and it was revealed that the secondary wirings were burnt at selected and isolated places with motive of destroying evidence of spurious seals. Supply to the factory premises through meter in question was disconnected by the supplier/licensee and a claim for Rs. 6,37,980/- was raised on account of unmetered consumption. Such disconnection was made on 2.7.1992. A writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner and by an order dated 13.7.1992 this Court directed reconnection on payment of Rs. 4 lakhs. Another static meter was installed at the factory premises (hereinafter referred to as Old Static Meter or OSM) in May, 1993. An inspection was held on 9.2.1994 and it was revealed that a fine hole had been drilled on the body cover of Electro Mechanical Tariff Meter to prevent registration of actual consumption. The Officers of Loss Control Cell of the supplier visited the factory premises but were denied entry by the writ petitioners on 22.3.1994. Thereafter again on 27.12.1994 the supply of electricity was disconnected. 6. Another writ application was moved by the writ petitioners during vacation whereupon a reconnection was directed on payment of ad hoc sum of Rs. 1,28,61,387/-. An appeal was preferred against the said order, whereupon a Division Bench directed restoration within 9.1.1995. By an order dated 9.1.1995 the Division Bench granted liberty to the supplier to remove the old meters and restore supply through new meter. The old meter was directed to be kept under joint seal of Advocate on Records of both parties and sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector for testing. Thereafter upon compliance of the said order supply to factory premises was restored on 10.2.1995. The old meter was directed to be kept under joint seal of Advocate on Records of both parties and sent to the Chief Electrical Inspector for testing. Thereafter upon compliance of the said order supply to factory premises was restored on 10.2.1995. According to the company on or about 5.4.1995 a General notice intimating all high tension consumers were given expressing its intention to instal static meters. Again on 4.9.1995 the supplier informed the consumers that the static electronic meter would be used for recording consumption of electrical energy during particular period if consumers were interested in new time day tariff. On 29.11.1995 the writ petitioner was informed that the static meter would be installed on 5.12.1995. The said letter is contained in Annexure 'E' to the stay application; whereafter a static meter bearing No. 1994554 was installed at the factory premises of the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter the said meter would be referred to as New Static meter). The writ petitioner protested against the installation of a static meter. By a letter dated 8.12.1995 to which a reply was given by the supplier in continuation of its letter dated 2.1.1996 pointing out installation of such meter and further informing that the bill for January, 1996 would be raised on the basis of Static meter. On 30.1.1996 an enquiry was made by the writ petitioner as to whether for installation of such meter sanction/approval of State Government was obtained in reply whereto the supplier in terms of letter dated 12.2.1996 stated that such permission is not necessary. In the meantime the bill for the month of January, 1996 was raised in terms of bill dated 9.2.1996 on the basis of the readings recorded in the static meter to which the writ petitioner objected in terms of letter dated 16.2.1996, a reply whereto was issued by the supplier by its letter dated 1.3.1996. A notice of disconnection was also given as the due date for payment of such bill was 22.2.96. 7. Thereafter the instant writ application was filed, wherin a learned Single Judge of this court by an order dated 12.3.1996 directed the supplier to raise bill on the basis of consumption recorded in existing EMTM and continue to do so till the matter was heard. Against the said order this appeal was preferred in which as noticed hereinbefore various interim orders were passed. 8. Against the said order this appeal was preferred in which as noticed hereinbefore various interim orders were passed. 8. Before proceeding to deal with the respective contentions of the parties it is necessary to notice that the Electrical Inspector has stated that EMTMs are being used by different agencies for a long time for recording the consumption of electrical energy by the consumers and their performances were found to be satisfactory under normal condition. However, it is stated that use of static electronic meter is a recent development and more technical features were incorporated therein. It was stated that accuracy level of these meters are higher than the EMTMs. He thereafter considered the off loaded datas, recorded by the computer installed inside the static electronic meters and it was found that the new static meter failed to register because of missing voltage since its installation on 5.12.1995, whereas during the same period i.e. from 5.12.1995 to 12.6.1996 the old static meter showed registration of consumption more or less uninterrupted. The Chief Electrical Inspector wondered, when both the static meters were connected with the same source of supply there is no reason as to why the meter No. 1994554 should fail to register. No clue however was found. It was reported: "It is seen from the load survey data that the static meters indicate MDI reading at an interval of half an hour; date wise, further to this at what time of a particular day of a particular month the meters failed to register and when again it started functioning normally may be obtained from the data furnished. Both the meters are connected to the same source of supply through same sets of fuses. As such aparently there is no reason as to why the meter No. 1994554 should fail to register. In case of normal failure of the protection fuses of the metering circuits both the meters would have been affected identically", 9. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the CESC Limited submitted that if the said report is read between lines, it would be evident that the writ petitioner had taken recourse to certain devices so as to interfere with the correct recording of consumption of electric energy correctly therein. In this situation according to the learned counsel consumption recorded in the static electronic meter should be preferred. 10. Mr. In this situation according to the learned counsel consumption recorded in the static electronic meter should be preferred. 10. Mr. Ajit Kumar Panja, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner took us through various provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and Indian Electricity Rules and submitted on the basis thereof, that the law provides an in-built safeguard for the consumers. According to the learned counsel the yellow book is prescribed under the rules for indicating reading of the meters for the benefit of the consumers. But since installation of the static electronic meter, such practice has been given up resulting in abridgement of consumers' legal right by directing him to pay huge amount without complying the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submits that raising of arbitrary bills itself attracts the principles of natural justice and in support of his aforementioned contentions reliance has been placed on M/s. Pyrites, Phosphatio and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Bihar Electricity Board & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 Pat 1 and a recent unreported decision of this Court in Sri Hanuman Steel Rolling Mill and Anr. vs. CESC Limited being Matter No. 129 of 1993 and anologous matters disposed of on 12.4.1996 (since reported in 1996(1) CHN 15 ). The learned Counsel submits that the supplier being a licensee is bound to follow the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder and failure to do so would render the entire act invalid. Reference in this connection has been placed on 1975(1) SCC page 559 and 1994(4) SCC 225 . 11. It was also submitted that s. 26(1) of the Indian Electricity Act confers right upon the parties to raise a dispute as regards correctness of the recording of consumption of electric energy in a meter but the same does not encompass within its provisions a dispute as to whether any fraud has been practised or not and such matters should be dealt with under Ss. 39 and 44 and as the said provisions are penal in nature, the same should be strictly construed. Reliance in this connection has been placed in Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs. Basantibai reported in AIR 1988 SC 71 . 12. Mr. Panja would urge that no criminal case has been filed against the writ petitioners by the suppliers. 39 and 44 and as the said provisions are penal in nature, the same should be strictly construed. Reliance in this connection has been placed in Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs. Basantibai reported in AIR 1988 SC 71 . 12. Mr. Panja would urge that no criminal case has been filed against the writ petitioners by the suppliers. According to the learned counsel similar allegation as to the tampering of the meters were being made by the supplier in 1992 and on all occasions this Court had interfered with such actions of the respondents. According to the learned counsel in terms of the order dated 16.9.1992 passed by Altamas Kabir, J, inspection has been carried out but no wrong on the part of the writ petitioner was detected. Only on 27.12.1994 on the self-same allegations electrical connection was disconnected and exhorbitant claim amounting to crores of rupees were made on the alleged unmetered consumption. According to the learned counsel as would appear from the facts stated hereinbefore, the Division Bench in terms of its order dated 16.1.1996 directed restoration of electrical energy unconditionally. It has been pointed out that in terms of an order dated 9.1.1995 which was passed at the instance of the supplier/licensee the old meters were replaced and new meters were installed and old meters were sent for checking by the Chief Electrical Inspector whereupon a report was filed on 17.1.1995. The said report again remained unchallenged and the licensee acted upon the same. However, according to the learned counsel since January, 1995 to December, 1995 no allegations or whisper as to tampering of EMT Meters and pilferage of energy was made: but suddenly on 5.12.1995 new static electronic meter was installed to which protests were made but the same was turned down. It has been pointed out that subsequently in the bill for February to May, 1996 more electrical energy was shown to have been consumed in the Static Electronic Magnetic Meters whereas less consumption was recorded in the static electronic meters. It was, therefore, contended that recording of electrical energy in the static meters cannot be accurate and story of tampering of the same must be rejected. 13. It was further submitted that no reason has been assigned as to how reading of static meter was taken and only reading in EMT Meter had been taken till date. 14. It was, therefore, contended that recording of electrical energy in the static meters cannot be accurate and story of tampering of the same must be rejected. 13. It was further submitted that no reason has been assigned as to how reading of static meter was taken and only reading in EMT Meter had been taken till date. 14. The learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed thereunder would show that the article 'The' has been used prior to the word 'meter' which shows that the meter once installed cannot be changed with a new type of meter without the consumer's consent inasmuch as, under the law a consumer has the right to instal his own meter or to hire the same from the supplier/licensee. 15. Mr. Gupta the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the supplier/licensee submitted that maintenance of the yellow book is not statutory either under the Indian Electricity Act and the rules framed thereunder or the conditions of suply. It was submitted that such practice could be followed in the, old days but at present number of high voltage bulk consumers are about 1700, and in view of installation the static electronic meter need for yellow book no longer remains. It is submitted that the digital display of the said meter did not leave any scope for error in reading of the meter and even a lay person could read the same without any difficulty. It has been pointed out that static meter not only provides datas on consumption of energy but also records half-hourly power consumption data as also abnormal conditions of voltage/currents. According to the learned counsel it was not possible to take down manually such data every time by meter readers. It is stated that in built computer which is plugged into the static meter can offload all data including those on consumption of energy. And such data can be known by consumer whenever he likes in view of the digital display. It was pointed out that the KWH reading being cumulative, in the event the consumer misses to take such reading at any time, a subsequent reading would give net consumption till date. 16. And such data can be known by consumer whenever he likes in view of the digital display. It was pointed out that the KWH reading being cumulative, in the event the consumer misses to take such reading at any time, a subsequent reading would give net consumption till date. 16. Regarding the contention that the static electronic meter was installed as a check meter, it was submitted that the same is factually in-correct as would appear from the supplier's letter dated 29th November, 1995 wherein it was clearly stated that re-wiring was necessary for installation of the metering equipment and the same amounts to a notice in accordance with s.20(1) of the Act. 17. According to the learned counsel installation of the static meter was done in terms of the general notice to all consumers including the writ petitioner in its letter dated 5.4.1995 wherein it was clearly stated that "These meters will be used for recording the consumption of energy during the above periods of the day," which was followed by the abovementioned notice dated 29.11.1995 and both the letters read together must be held to have given correct and adequate notice to the consumers for bills should be raised on the basis of reading in the new static electronic meter. 18. As regards the contention that before the installation of new meter consumer is entitled to prior notice, it has been pointed that there is no such requirement. In this connection our attention has been drawn to ss. 23(3) and (4) of the Indian Electricity Act which provides for the manner in which a licensee can charge for supply of electricity to any consumer. On failure to pay such charges, by the consumer, the electrical connection may be disconnected in terms of s. 24(1). According to the learned counsel only remedy of the consumer is to raise dispute under s. 24(2) or refer the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector under s. 26(6) of the Act. It has been submitted that installation of a meter does not adversely affect the right of the consumer and thus the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with. 19. As regards the contentions that electronic static meter being a special form of appliance the same could not be installed. Mr. It has been submitted that installation of a meter does not adversely affect the right of the consumer and thus the principles of natural justice are not required to be complied with. 19. As regards the contentions that electronic static meter being a special form of appliance the same could not be installed. Mr. Gupta submitted that such provision had no application as the static meter is not an appliance "for utilising energy". 20. As regards violation of the condition of supply it is urged that installation of meter does not violate the condition of supply at any point of time. Condition No. 20(b) provides that the amount of energy supplied to the consumer for electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter or meters to be installed and connected by the licensee. Our attention also has been drawn to condition No. 22 which provides for the manner in which monthly electricity consumption bills are to be raised on a consumer by a licensee. 21. As regards the contention that as installation of this static electronic meter has itself been objected, it was urged that the matter has to be referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector for a decision, which the licensee has failed to comply with. 22. The learned counsel submits that s. 21(4) to which reference has been made by Shri Panja has no application. As regards the contentions that the writ petitioner had been discriminated against, Mr. Gupta drew our attention to the statements made in Paragraph 44 at Page 19 of the stay petition and submitted that since October, 1995 the supplier had installed the static electronic meters in the premises of692 high voltage consumers and had progressively started raising electricity consumption bills on the basis of such reading, whereas the said meter has been installed at the premises of the writ petitioner only in December, 1995. According to the learned counsel the number of High Voltage consumers in whose premises static electric meters have been installed has risen to 1080 consumers and they are being billed accordingly. It is submitted that the West Bengal Electricity Board had also taken re-course to the said procedure. 23. According to the learned counsel the number of High Voltage consumers in whose premises static electric meters have been installed has risen to 1080 consumers and they are being billed accordingly. It is submitted that the West Bengal Electricity Board had also taken re-course to the said procedure. 23. As regards the contention that s. 26(1) of the Act does not contemplate installation of a new type of meter when the old meter had not been found to he recording consumption of electrical energy incorrectly, it was submitted that s. 26 read as a whole speaks of installation of a correct meter and the licensee has an absolute right under s. 26(1) and/or s. 26(7) to decide as the true readings of which of the meters installed in accordance with s. 26(1) and/ or s. 26(7) of the Act would be taken into consideration. It is submitted that all conditions for supply of electrical energy in terms of the conditions of supply have been fulfilled and, thus the raising of the electricity bills on the basis of readings of such static electronic meter has been in accordance with such right conferred upon CESC. It was further submitted that static electronic meter is a correct meter within the meaning of provision of s. 26(1) of the Act and such a power had been conferred in terms of clause (a) thereof. It was urged that the decision to record the consumption of electrical energy on the basis of a main meter having already been communicated, the petitioner cannot take any exception thereto. Our attention was drawn to a letter dated 2nd January, 1996 in order to show that only because the matter was subjudice the existing energy meters had been left in circuit. Our attention was further drawn to paragraph-4 of the said letter whereby the petitioner was informed that the Bill for January, 1996 would be made on the basis of a reading of the said new Static Electronic Meter. It was submitted that in any event s.26(7) of the Act also enables a licensee to install the second meter for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of energy supplied to the consumer. The 2nd proviso appended to s. 26(7), according to the learned counsel, also enables the licensee to raise the electricity bills on the basis of a reading of a meter installed in terms thereof. According to Mr. The 2nd proviso appended to s. 26(7), according to the learned counsel, also enables the licensee to raise the electricity bills on the basis of a reading of a meter installed in terms thereof. According to Mr. Gupta there is no obligation upon CESC to refer to the Electrical Inspector any dispute raised by a consumer as even the petitioner could have raised such a dispute. As regards the contention that the licensee has no authority to instal Static Electronic Meter in view of rule 57(1) of the Rules and there has been no notice as required to be given under the Model Rule No. 17 contained in Annexure VI of the Rules before removal of the meter and/or discontinuing with readings of the said Electro-Magnetic Meter for the purpose of raising consumption. bills, it was urged that the said contention is not correct. 24. Mr. Gupta submitted that such power having been conferred upon the Act, no separate power is required for installation of a new meter under the Rules. Rule 57(5), according to Mr. Gupta, has no application. It was submitted that under the said Rules there is no requirement that such register of meters has to be maintained and updated at the premises of the consumer. It was submitted that the said meter carries ISO 9002 certificate which demonstrates high level of accuracy and correctness of such meter which is recognised worldwide. The said certificate also contains reference of Indian Standard Specification IS 14002 being valid upto February, 1999. It was also urged that Model Rule 17 contained in Annexure VI of the Rules has no application of manner in the instant case. 25. Distinguishing the decision of one of us in Sri Hanuman Steel Rolling Mill & Anr. VS. CESC Ltd. (Matter No. 129 of 1993) and other analogous cases, it was submitted that in that case the court was only concerned with theft of electrical energy whereas in the instant case there are specific statutory provisions for installation of electricity meters, raising of electricity bills giving of notice prior to disconnection on the ground of non-payment of such bills, raising a dispute by a consumer as to the correctness of either the meter installed for the electricity bills raised and in that view of the matter any further requirement to comply with the principles of natural justice would not arise. 26. 26. As regards the contention that new meter could not have been installed without the specific leave of the court, it was submitted that in terms of the order dated 16th January, 1995 passed by the Division Bench, it was observed "The order dated 9.1.1995 will not, however, prevent the CESC Ltd., from taking any other steps in the matter in accordance with law"; and, thus there is no impediment in the way of the licensee to install a new meter. As regards the question of tampering with the old meter, our attention was drawn the reports filed before this Court in April, 1996 and 18th June, 1996 by the Electrical Inspector and it was submitted on the basis thereof, is that it would appear that the petitioner is guilty of tampering with the meters. As regards the contention that the opening reading as on 1st January, 1996 prima facie is erroneous; Mr. Gupta submitted that Static Electronic Meter was installed on 5.12. 95 but the recording was done for consumption for the month of January, 1996 and, thus the said contention is not tenable. 27. There cannot be any doubt that the CESC Ltd. being a licensee is bound to supply electrical energy to its consumers and to raise bills in terms of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the rules framed thereunder and/ 01" the condition of supply framed in terms of s. 21(2) of the Act. A licence is granted and revoked in terms of Ss. 3 to 5 of the Indian Electricity Act. Sections 12 to 19 deal with works which according to Mr. Panja includes installation of a meter but keeping in view of the scheme of the Act the sub- mission does not appear to be wholly correct. Section 19A states that for the purpose of the Act the point at which the supply of energy by a licensee to a consumer shall be deemed to commence shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 20(1)(c) empowers the licensee to enter the premises to which energy is supplied inter alia, for the purpose of removing any meter where the licensee is authorised to take away and cut off such supply. Sub-section (2) of s. 20 empowers a licensee to exercise such power under an order of Magistrate of First Class. Section 20(1)(c) empowers the licensee to enter the premises to which energy is supplied inter alia, for the purpose of removing any meter where the licensee is authorised to take away and cut off such supply. Sub-section (2) of s. 20 empowers a licensee to exercise such power under an order of Magistrate of First Class. Section 21(1) puts restrictions on licensee controlling or interfering with the use of energy which includes use of prescribed special form of appliance for utilising energy supplied by him save as provided by sub-so (7) of s. 26. The proviso appended thereto puts an embargo upon any person to adopt any form of appliance or use the energy supplied to him so as to regards unduly and improperly interfere with the safety and efficient working of licensee's electrical supply lines or other works. 28. Sub-section (2) of s. 21 provides that a licensee may make conditions of supply not inconsistent with the said Act or licence upon obtaining previous sanction of the State Government. It is admitted that such conditions of supply has been framed by the CESC Ltd. 29. Sub-section (4) of s. 21 provides that where any difference or dispute arises as to whether a licensee has prescribed any appliance or controlled or interfered with the use of energy in contravening of sub-so (1) the matter shall be either referred to an Electrical Inspector or if the licensees and consumers so desires, determined by arbitration. 30. Section 24 confers power upon the licensee to disconnect electrical energy if the consumer neglects to pay any charge for energy inter alia for electrical energy used by him. 31. However, there cannot be any doubt that in terms of S. 24 of the said Act, the consumer is entitled to raise a bona fide dispute and in case such a dispute has been referred to the Electrical Inspector, before any notice of disconnection is served, the licensee would not exercise its power till such decision by the Inspector. However, in case any request is made for such deposit by a licensee before the Inspector and in the event, the consumer fails to comply with such request, the prohibition contained under sub-s (2) of S. 4 would apply. 32. Section 26 which is very material for the purpose of disposal of this writ application should be considered in a bit details. 32. Section 26 which is very material for the purpose of disposal of this writ application should be considered in a bit details. Sub-section (1) of S. 26 provides that quantity of electricity supplied to a consumer is to be ascertained by means of correct meter and the licensee is obliged to supply such a meter if so required by the consumer. The proviso appended to the said section empowers the licensee to 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. In this case there is no dispute that meter has been supplied by the licensee and as such it is bound to keep the meter correct. 33. Sub-sections (6), (7) of S. 26 read thus :"26(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-so (1) is or is not correct the meter 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." "26(7). In addition to any meter which may be placed upon the premises of a consumer in pursuance of the provisions of sub-so (1), the licensee may place upon such premises such meter, maximum demand indicator or other aparatus as he may think fit for the purpose of ascertaining or regulating number of hours during which the supply is given, or the rate per unit of time at which energy is supplied to the consumer, or any other quantity or time connected with the supply : Provided that the meter, indicator or apparatus shall not, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, be placed otherwise than between the distributing mains of the licensee and any meter referred to in sub-so (1) : Provided also that, where the charges for the supply of energy depend wholly or partly upon the reading or indication of any such meter, indicator of apparatus as aforesaid, the licensee shall, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, keep the meter, indicator or apparatus correct; and the provisions of sub-ss. (4), (5) and (6) shall in that case apply as though the meter, indicator or apparatus were a meter referred to in sub-so (1)." 34. In case any dispute within the meaning of the said provision is referred to the Inspector any person aggrived thereby may prefer an appeal to the State in terms of s. (2) of s. 36 of the said provision to the appropriate Government. 35. Section 37 of the Act empowers the Central Electricity Board to make rule and such rule may provide for securing of a regular and sufficient supply of energy by the licensee to consumer and testing at various points of the system of regularity and sufficiency of such supply and for the examination of the records of such test by consumer in terms of s. 37(2)(e). Sub-section (4) of s. 37 provides that in making any rule the Central Electricity Board may direct that every breach thereof shall be punishable with fine as specified therein. Sections 39, 44, 47 and 48 are penal provisions. 36. Indian Electricity Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have been framed by the Central Electricity Board. Rule 56 empowers the supplies to fix one or more seals on cut out meter maximum demand indicator or any other apparatus. Sections 39, 44, 47 and 48 are penal provisions. 36. Indian Electricity Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) have been framed by the Central Electricity Board. Rule 56 empowers the supplies to fix one or more seals on cut out meter maximum demand indicator or any other apparatus. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 56 requires the consumer to use all reasonable means to ensure that no such seal is broken otherwise than by the supplies. 37. Rule 57(1), 57(5) and 57(6) read thus :- "57(1). Any meter or maximum demand indicator or other apparatus placed upon a consumer's premises in accordance with s. 26 shall be of appropriate capacity and shall be deemed to be correct if its limits of error are within the limits specified in the relevant Indian Standard Specification and where no such specification exists, the limits of crror do not exceed 3 per cent, above or below absolute accuracy at all loads in excess of one tenth of full loads and up to full load." "57(5). Every supplier shall maintain a register of meters showing the date of the last test, the error recorded at the time of the test, the limit of accuracy after adjustment and final test, the date of installation, withdrawal, re-installation, etc. for the examination of the Inspector or his authorised representative." "57(6). Where the supplier has failed to examine, test and regulate the meters and keep records thereof as aforesaid, the Inspector may cause such meters to be tested and sealed at the cost of the owner of meters in case these are found defective." Rule 22 (b) of the condition of supply reads thus "Bills will normally be sent by post; if a bill is not received at the usual date, the licensee should be notified, at the licensee's office; failing such notice, no alteration of the due date will be allowed for the purpose of the rebate. If after the due date the bill remains unpaid, the Licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing discontinue the supply of energy to the consumer at the said premises until such bill, together with any expenses incurred by the Licensee in disconnecting and reconnecting the supply is paid. If after the due date the bill remains unpaid, the Licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days' notice in writing discontinue the supply of energy to the consumer at the said premises until such bill, together with any expenses incurred by the Licensee in disconnecting and reconnecting the supply is paid. The Licensee may utilise any deposit made under paragraph 12 for the purpose of recovering any sums due after the supply has been disconnected and if the security deposit is insufficient to cover the amount outstanding the consumer shall pay interest on the amount outstanding at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the due date until payment is made." Annexure VI to Indian Electricity Rules provides a model form of draft condition of supply, Rule 17 provides notice to removal whereas Rule 18 provides as to how in the event of dispute about the accuracy of the meter, the matter may be referred to by consumer to the Electrical Inspector. 38. The questions raised in this case are required to be answered keeping in view the factual background as indicated hereinbefore as also the relevant provisions of the Statute. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the appellant being a licensee is required to raise Bills on consumption of electrical energy in terms of the provisions of the tariff, as also in accordance with the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore. The consumption of electrical energy admittedly has to be recorded through a correct meter, as is contemplated u/s26 of the Indian Electricity Act. In this case, admittedly three meters had been installed. Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act merely speaks of installation of a correct meter through which the consumption of electrical energy to the premises of a consumer by the licensee is required to be asserted. It is, in our opinion, not correct to contend that the licensee has no power to replace one meter by another meter, which is more sophisticated, which even according to the Chief Electrical Inspector more technical features incorporated therein. Previously, the CESC Ltd. has installed EMT meters. Although their performance of such meter was found to be satisfactory under normal operating conditions, the CESC Ltd. in view of availability of more technically advancement sought to install static electronic meters. Previously, the CESC Ltd. has installed EMT meters. Although their performance of such meter was found to be satisfactory under normal operating conditions, the CESC Ltd. in view of availability of more technically advancement sought to install static electronic meters. Replacement of one type of meter by another type of meter which has the benefit of an advanced technology therefore cannot be said to be bad in law. Law had to be interpreted keeping in view the present situation. The Licensee being a commercial organisation is certainly entitled to raise a correct Bill on the basis of consumption of electrical energy recorded in a meter. The submission of Mr. Panja as regards contention of relevant provision of the licensee of cannot be accepted. We in this contention agree with submissions of Mr. Gupta, a technologically advanced meter may be helpful for the purpose of ascertaining correct consumption of electrical energy, in our opinion, no exception thereto can be taken thereto. We are satisfied that other Licensees and Electricity Boards and other public utility concerns have since been also making use of the static electronic meters, evidently, keeping in view the technological advantage over other meters. No fault in this regard, therefore, can be found with the licensee. We are also of the decision that for taking such a policy decision, the licensee is not required to comply with the principle of natural justice as the same would render the entire exercise futile. If the petitioner had any objection as regards thereto, it could raise an objection but if, according to us a correct meter is installed by the licensee, the consumer's objection will not be valid. Furthermore, the Chief Electrical Inspector also who had been asked by this Court to submit a report, in this respect, also had pointed out the efficacy of such meters subject to its undergoing certain tests. 39. The Chief Electrical Inspector is a statutory authority and in terms of s. 26(6) is required to resolve a dispute as regards accuracy of a meter. 40. Before us, certain chargeable unit shown in, the EMT meters had been placed which is as follows :- Chargeable Units : Dt. April 18, 96, and 20th April, 1996. 39. The Chief Electrical Inspector is a statutory authority and in terms of s. 26(6) is required to resolve a dispute as regards accuracy of a meter. 40. Before us, certain chargeable unit shown in, the EMT meters had been placed which is as follows :- Chargeable Units : Dt. April 18, 96, and 20th April, 1996. Billing Month EMT New Static 1/96 81953 Units 364032 Units 2/96 66277 " 300448 " 3/96 61771 " 69338 " 4/96 130674 " 74992 " 5/96 51774 " 51318 " March Closing 551077 May Opening 588573 37496 X 2 = 74992 MAX DEMAND INDICATOR METER EMT MAX HDI 266.6 821.02 452.0 New Static 171.2 796.0 456.8 Old " 800.07 480.0 From the first Report, of the Chief Electrical Inspector, it appears that a new Static HWH had shown higher reading by 62 per cent than EMKWH meter (manual) and an old static meter had shown 300 per cent higher consumption compared to the new Static KWH meter as per reading taken on 12.6.96, EMKWH meter had shown a reading higher than new static KWH whereas the old Static KWH meter had shown consumption of less electrical energy of the new static meters. In his second Report, the Chief Electrical Inspector while stating that the accuracy level of static electronic meters are higher than the EMT meters but while considering the off-loaded dates supplied by CESC Ltd. from the in-built computer, it was observed that the said meter, at certain times, since its inception, failed to register because of missing voltage. He had also recorded differences in readings in the old static and new static meters. The Chief Electrical Inspector, in his Report, stated :- Both the static meters are connected to the same source of supply through same sets of fuses. As such apparently there is no reason as to why the meter no. 1994554 should fail to register. In case of normal failure of the protection fuses of the metering circuits both the meters would have been affected identically. But the EMT meter, in case of any failure of the metering circuits, it may altogether stop registration or may register less than the actual depending on the nature of the fault or interference. Unfortunately keeping behind no clue, unless it is recorded manually. 41. But the EMT meter, in case of any failure of the metering circuits, it may altogether stop registration or may register less than the actual depending on the nature of the fault or interference. Unfortunately keeping behind no clue, unless it is recorded manually. 41. However, having said, so, he expressed his difficulty to state about the correctness of the meter unless certain tests are carried out. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, we are of the view that accuracy of all the meters should be tested by him in exercise of his statutory power u/s 26(6) in respect whereof the costs borne by CESC Ltd. and the matter will be deemed to have been referred to him by the Licensee. We, therefore, hope and trust that in the mean time that when the hearing in the said proceeding is taken up, it will be open to the CESC Ltd. to instal another meter whether an EMT or a static meter which according to it would record correct consumption of electrical energy. 42. There can be no doubt whatsoever as has been submitted by Mr. Panja that a statutory authority must act within the four corners of the Statute, but keeping in view the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the Rules framed therein, Electricity (Supply) Act as also the conditions of supply, we are of the view that a Licensee has every right to recover its just dues and prevent theft/extraction of electrical energy. 43. The consumer has a right to raise a bona fide dispute in terms of the provisions of s.24 of the Indian Electricity Act and has also a right to raise a dispute as regards the correctness of a meter. Such disputes have to be resolved by the Chief Electrical Inspector in terms of provisions of the Act as has been held by one of us in Sri Hanuman Steel Rolling Mill and Anr. vs. CESC Ltd, matter no. 129/1993 and other analogous cases disposed of on 12.4.96. It is true when facts are disputed. Principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, when by reason of an adjudication or otherwise, a party may suffer civil or evil consequences. 44. It is true that a consumer may opt to instal a meter himself as contradistinguished from hiring a meter. It is true when facts are disputed. Principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, when by reason of an adjudication or otherwise, a party may suffer civil or evil consequences. 44. It is true that a consumer may opt to instal a meter himself as contradistinguished from hiring a meter. From the Licensee, such option can be exercised by the writ petitioner even now and in case such option is exercised, there cannot be any doubt that the Licensee would be entitled to check the correctness thereof. It is true that in view of the provisions of s. 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, it is for the owner of the meter, be he a Consumer or a Licensee, to maintain the same so that it may record correctness of consumption of electrical energy. There is no allegation that the Licensee adopted any means for the purpose of showing an increased consumption of electrical energy. We are baffled as to how three different meters installed in the premises of the petitioner showed different results. As we have referred the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector who had submitted Reports before us, we do not think it fit to enter into the merit of the said Reports or otherwise, as objections thereto had been filed. But we must express our surprise that flow of electrical energy could be stopped even for some time in one of the meters. In this connection, it is relevant to note that the CESC Ltd. filed a supplementary affidavit affirmed by Radhika Ranjan Basu in April 1996 wherewith it has annexed certain letters pointing out certain facts which were allegedly noticed during the course of investigation but the same were not taken into consideration by Sri T.N. Biswas and S.R. Das Gupta, Electrical Inspectors. In view of the fact that it would not be outside the purview of the enquiry there is a scope for the said documents being considered by the Chief Electrical Inspector. We have no doubt in our mind that the ld. Chief Electrical Inspector would take into consideration all the relevant factors for determining the real issue as a statutory authority. We feel it is also his duty to see that neither the Licensee nor the Consumer suffers for acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the other side. We have no doubt in our mind that the ld. Chief Electrical Inspector would take into consideration all the relevant factors for determining the real issue as a statutory authority. We feel it is also his duty to see that neither the Licensee nor the Consumer suffers for acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the other side. In other words, whereas in a case of this nature, a consumer must be held to be entitled to only such bills for consumption of electrical energy to which he is liable, such consumption of electrical energy having been recorded through a correct meter, a Licensee also should not suffer, if it is found that the consumer is guilty of adopting such device which had lowered down the recording of consumption of electrical energy in one of such meters. Both the consumer and licensee have their remedies against each other under the Statute and the Chief Electrical Inspector being a statutory arbiter is expected to perform his duty honestly, faithfully and diligently so as to sub-serve the scheme of supply of electrical energy to a consumer or a licensee. No doubt, a consumer is entitled to get supply of electrical energy from the licensee, as electricity is one of the basic amenities but for that the consumer has to pay for the same and cannot take recourse to any devices or machinations so as to enable him to pay a lower charge then what he was liable to pay. It is true that yellow book was used to be maintained by CESC Ltd. but reading the provisions of Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, it does not appear that maintenance of such yellow book is a statutory requirement. It was evidently used to be done for the sake of convenience and in order to enable the consumer to know the actual consumption of electrical energy recorded in the meter. It has rightly been pointed out that it is still open to the consumer to ascertain the consumption of electrical energy in view of the fact that datas can be off-loaded from the in-built computer system as the meter at the time of installation indicated the reading and from which necessary readings may be taken down subsequently as and when occasion arises therefore. Thus, the consumer, if he so desires,