JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. This plaintiff M/s Laxmi Ice Factory filed a suit against the respondents inter alia pleading that two electric meters are installed in his factory premises which bear numbers as 1729 and 214. On 17.8.1982, meter No. 1729 was changed. On 5.5.83, the said meter was examined by the Divisional Vigilance Officer, MPEB and relying upon his report, a supplementary bill for Rs. 7346.86 was issued. Thereafter, another supplementary bill for Rs. 122.88 was also issued in relation to meter No. 714. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were not entitled to issue the supplementary bills, on their own showing that the meter was not recording correct consumption. He submitted that he had paid the bills which were issued to him and the defendants have no right to make recovery. The defendants in their written statement contended that the defendants acted in accordance with law. On inspection it was found that the meter was not recording consumption from three phases but was only recording consumption from one phase. According to them, the suit of the plaintiff was barred under the provisions of M. P. Electrical Under-takings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1961, as the plaintiff has not deposited the amount under protest and has not filed the suit within six months. 2. After recording evidence and hearing the parties the learned trial Court found that the recovery under the bill was illegal but further held that the suit of the plaintiff is barred under the provisions of section 5 of the above referred Act. The first appellate Court also confirmed the said findings but held that the suit was barred under the provisions of section 5 (1) of the Act as the plaintiff has not deposited the amount within three months under protest nor has filed the suit within six months. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the two courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal, which is admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law. Whether in view of the findings recorded by the two Courts below that issuance of the bill was illegal, was the plaintiff required to observe the provisions of the M. P. Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act. 1961 ? 3. Whether in view of the findings recorded by the two Courts below that issuance of the bill was illegal, was the plaintiff required to observe the provisions of the M. P. Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act. 1961 ? 3. Shri Samaiya learned counsel for the appellant contends that when the two courts below have held that issuance of the bill was illegal, then the plaintiff was not required to observe the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, according to Shri Jaiswal. before filing a suit challenging the liability to pay dues a consumer is duty bound to deposit the demanded amount under protest within three months of the date of the service of the notice of demand and is also obliged to file a suit within six months from the date of deposit. 4. Section 5 of the Dues Recovery Act reads as under. 5. Suit to challenge liability to payment - (1) Where a notice of demand has not served on the debtor or his authorized agent under section 4, he may if he denies his liability to pay the dues, penalty or costs or any part of any of them, institute a suit after depositing with the prescribed authority the aggregate amount specified in the notice of demand under protest in writing that he is not liable to pay the same within three months of the date of the service of the notice of demand. (2) A suit referred to in sub-section (1) may be instituted in a civil Court of competent jurisdiction at any time within six months from the date of deposit with the prescribed authority and subject to the result of such suit, the notice of demand shall be conclusive proof of the various dues, penalty and costs mentioned therein. 5. According to section 4 of the Act, where the dues are not paid by a debtor by the date specified in the bill therefore, the prescribed authority may at any time serve or cause to be served upon him a notice of demand in the prescribed form. Section 5 requires the consumer to deposit the said amount within three months from the date of demand and file a suit within six months from the date of deposit under protest. Reading together the two sections, it is clear that dues should be legally recoverable dues. Section 5 requires the consumer to deposit the said amount within three months from the date of demand and file a suit within six months from the date of deposit under protest. Reading together the two sections, it is clear that dues should be legally recoverable dues. It cannot be gain said that a person who is at all not liable to pay the amount would be required to deposit the amount under protests before filing a suit. Section 4 and 5 read together would only mean that if there is no dispute referable to the Electrical Inspector, then such a person would be required to observe the provisions of the Dues Recovery Act. But in a case where the consumer had been paying the bill amount regularly but all of a sudden receives a supplementary bill and is called upon to pay the amount mentioned in it, in my opinion he would not be required to deposit the amount and file a suit thereafter. 6. According to section 26 (1) and (6) of the Electricity Act, a dispute as to the correctness or otherwise of the meter has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector and till the decision is given by the Electrical Inspector, the Board cannot issue a supplementary bill or disconnect he connection. The matter was considered by the Supreme Court in M. P. Electricity Board v. Smt. Basanti Bai (1). The Supreme Court has observed that from the provisions of section 26. it is clear 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 determine whether the meter is correct or not. If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respects of such energy consumed within the period not exceeding six months. According to the Supreme Court, the Board is not competent to decide the matter unilaterally and issue supplementary bill. It is not disputed before us that the correctness of the meter was challenged by the Board itself. According to the Supreme Court, the Board is not competent to decide the matter unilaterally and issue supplementary bill. It is not disputed before us that the correctness of the meter was challenged by the Board itself. It was the Board who was challenging the correctness of the meter and as such the matter should have been referred by the Board to the Electrical Inspector for getting the dispute decided. The Supreme Court has further held that if there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer is tempering with the meter or manipulating with the supply line or breaking body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity consigned in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-section (6) of section 26. Such a dispute regarding commission of fraud, tempering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of section 26 (6) of the said Act. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is not correct or is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed that can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act. From the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the dispute relating to meter as to whether it is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made to him by either of the parties. The plaintiff never challenged the correctness or the capacity of recording of the meter. It was the Board which found as per its allegations, that the meter was not recording properly. The dispute ought to have been referred to the Electrical Inspector by the Board. The two Courts below have rightly found that the bills were issued contrary to law. Once it is held that the bills were contrary to the provisions of law or could not have been issued by the Board without observing the provisions of section 26 (6) of the Act, then the plaintiff would certainly be entitled to the relief claimed by him. The suit of the plaintiff deserves to and is accordingly decreed. It is ordered and decreed that the defendants shall not be entitled to recover the amount of supplementary bill issued against service connections No. 1729 and 714. The suit of the plaintiff deserves to and is accordingly decreed. It is ordered and decreed that the defendants shall not be entitled to recover the amount of supplementary bill issued against service connections No. 1729 and 714. The respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the appellant and / or disconnecting supply through service connections No. 1720 and 714 for non payment of the said bills. The respondent Board shall be free to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector and if the Electrical Inspector ultimately holds in favour of the Board, then the Board shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the consumer. Observing the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of M. P. Electricity Board (supra), it is directed that the Board is not competent to prepare and send the supplementary bill in respect of the energy consumed by the appellant from other two phases. The plaintiff is held entitled to a decree in the above terms. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. A decree be framed accordingly.