JUDGMENT : Narayan Roy, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the supplementary bill dated 9.3.1990, as contained in Annexure-7, to the tune of Rs. 11,05,650.69 for the period from February, 1982, to September, 1989, which was raised on the basis of the Vigilance Report dated 25.10.1989. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the settled law, no supplementary bill could have been raised on the basis of the vigilance report. In this connection reference has been made in the case of M.P.E.B. and others vs. Smt. Basantibai, reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 71. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in case the meter of the petitioner was defective, the matter could have been referred by the respondent Electricity Board to the Electrical Inspector under section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and on his report alone the supplementary bill could have been raised by the respondent Board. 5. It is almost admitted that the supplementary bill, as contained in Annexure-7, has been raised merely on the basis of the vigilance report, as contained in Annexure-3. In M.P.E.B.’s case (supra) it has been held that the dispute about the defectiveness of the electricity meter is to be decided only by the Electrical Inspector under the Act and pending dispute no bill could have been raised. 6. The law on the point is very clear as the remedy of the parties lies under the Indian Electricity Act itself. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of M. P. E. B. (supra), this writ application must be allowed. 7. In the result, I allow this writ application and quash the supplementary bill, as contained in Annexure-7. Consequently thereof, portion of demands, as contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 6 are also quashed. In view of the ratio laid down in the case of M. P. E. B. (supra), this writ application must be allowed. 7. In the result, I allow this writ application and quash the supplementary bill, as contained in Annexure-7. Consequently thereof, portion of demands, as contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 6 are also quashed. The respondent Board, however, shall be at liberty to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector in case the electricity meter of the petitioner is defective and 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 Electrical Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to be paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months. 8. It is needless to say that in case the petitioner has already paid the demands raised by the respondent Board, vide Annexures - 4, 5 and 6, the petitioner shall be entitled to get the refund.