( 1 ) THE petitioner has established a Small Scale Industrial Unit at new Guddadahalli in the suburbs of Bangalore City. It has secured an electric connection from the respondent-Board, which was inspected by the Board authorities on 24th of August, 1987. The inspection revealed that the main cover seal of the energy meter and the impression MTD-2 were tampered with and scratched. A mahazar was drawn up on spot, which was signed by proprietor of the petitioner. The mahazar recorded that the difference between the original seal and the meddled seal with scratches on it were shown to the consumer and that the consumer had made a statement that the matter should not be reported to the Police as he was ready to pay the back-billing charges at penal rates so as to make good the loss suffered by the Board. A back-billing demand was in due course raised by the Assistant Executive Engineer in terms of Annexure-A dated 7th of september, 1987 for a sum of Rs. 1,23,801/ -. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed to the Chief engineer, who confirmed the said demand. While doing so, the Chief Engineer recorded the testimony of one Sri S. R. Narasimha Murthy, according to whom, the main cover meter seal was not clear and had scratches on it and that the meter was recording 50% slow. The meter was according to the witness calibrated and rectified. Although an opportunity was offered to the consumer to cross-examine the witness, the consumer did not do so as according to him there was no need for any cross-examination. The Chief Engineer concluded that the impression on the seal was not clear and had scratches on both sides. He also concluded that the meter was recording 50% slow due to 't phase return wire fixing screw having been loosened inside the meter and the brake magnet position having been displaced. This could, according to the Chief engineer, happen only if some human agency had meddled with the mechanism. The petitioner being aggrieved by the view taken by the Chief Engineer filed the present writ petition for a certiorari quashing the demand as also the appellate order. ( 2 ) MR. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a twofold submission at the bar. The petitioner being aggrieved by the view taken by the Chief Engineer filed the present writ petition for a certiorari quashing the demand as also the appellate order. ( 2 ) MR. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a twofold submission at the bar. Firstly, it was argued that keeping in view the nature of the controversy, the respondents had no jurisdiction to determine and raise a demand on account of back-billing charges. He urged that any dispute as regards the correctness of a meter -could be resolved only by the Electrical inspector on a reference made to him under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The dispute in the instant case was, according to Mr. Jain, one relating to the correctness of the meter installed at the premises of the petitioner and could therefore have been agitated only before the Inspector concerned. Alternatively, he argued that the calculation of the back-billing charges was unsupported by any material hence arbitrary. He urged that the respondents had proceeded on the assumption that the unit had been working for 12 hours for all the 30 days of a month, which assumption, it was strenuously submitted, was wholly without any basis. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the necessity of a reference arose only where there was no human involvement in the erroneous recording of energy by the electrical meter. In cases of fraud and tampering of meters, Section 26 (6) had no application according to the respondents. Insofar as calculation of back-billing charges was concerned, it was fairly conceded that there was scope for modification depending upon the material, which the petitioner could produce to show that the unit did not work for 12 hours a day or that there were holidays during the month for which the demand was raised. ( 4 ) SECTION 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act envisages a reference to the Electrical Inspector at the instance of either party in cases where there is a dispute or difference as to the correctness of a meter. Upon any such reference being made, the Inspector is empowered to estimate the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, in cases where in the opinion of Inspector, the meter was not recording correctly. Upon any such reference being made, the Inspector is empowered to estimate the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, in cases where in the opinion of Inspector, the meter was not recording correctly. In order that a reference under Section 26 (6) be rendered necessary, it is imperative that a dispute as to the correctness of the meter exists between the parties, for the existence of any such dispute or difference alone is the basis for a reference. In other words, a reference under Section 26 (6) may be wholly unnecessary in a case where both the parties agree that the meter installed at the premises of the consumer was not correct and did not therefore record the consumption of energy correctly. In the instant case, no such dispute appears to have been raised. On the contrary, when the Board's staff inspected the installation and noticed the tampering with the meter, the consumer came forward with an offer to pay the back-billing charges at the penal rates to prevent the lodging of a police complaint. The mahazar drawn by the officers concerned clearly records the statement and the offer made by the consumer, which was acknowledged to be correct even by the consumer by affixing his signature on the same. The fact that the mahazar was drawn up is not disputed nor is it the case of the consumer that he was unaware of the contents thereof. What Mr. Jain argued was that the mahazar was signed under duress. I find it difficult to accept that submission. Nothing prevented the consumer from disputing the allegation that the meter had been tampered with or asserting that the meter was recording the consumption of energy correctly. Nothing even prevented him from refusing to be a party to the statement attributed to him in the mahazar by declining to sign the same or affixing his signature under protest. This the consumer failed to do. In the process, he committed himself to the statement made in the mahazar that he was prepared to pay the back-billing charges at penal rates to avoid prosecution. It was precisely for that reason that the staff of the Board rectified the meter and thereby changed their position irreversibly. This the consumer failed to do. In the process, he committed himself to the statement made in the mahazar that he was prepared to pay the back-billing charges at penal rates to avoid prosecution. It was precisely for that reason that the staff of the Board rectified the meter and thereby changed their position irreversibly. If a dispute was raised, the question of rectifying the meter and reinstalling the same may not have arisen for in that event, the dispute regarding correctness of the meter may have to be referred to the Electrical Inspector, in which event, the meter would have itself provided the basis for the Electrical Inspector to determine the controversy. Having induced the officers of the Board to proceed with the process of correction of the meter and having become a party to the extinction of the possible evidence on which the inspector could determine the controversy, the petitioner cannot at this stage turn round and contend that the mahazar did not reflect the true state of affairs or that the same had been signed by him under duress. ( 5 ) IN M. P. Electricity Board and Others v Smt. Basantibai , their Lordships were examining the scope of Section 26 (6) of the Act and whether a reference was necessary in cases where there was an allegation of fraud against the consumer or tampering with the meter or manipulation of the supply line or breaking of the body seal. The Court declared that any such allegation took the case beyond the purview of Section 26 (6 ). The following observations are in this regard apposite.- "if there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-section (6) of Section 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of Section 26 (6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is outside the ambit of Section 26 (6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act". ( 6 ) IN the light of the admission of the consumer about the incorrectness of the meter as also the allegation that the fault in the meter was on account of tampering of the same by a human agency, a reference to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) was wholly unnecessary. The first limb of Mr. Jain's argument must therefore fail. ( 7 ) COMING then to the alternative ground urged by Mr. Jain, there is merit in the submission that the calculation of the back-billing demand has proceeded on certain assumptions for which there may be no factual basis. It was not disputed on behalf of the respondents that the calculation proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner had utilised the entire connected load for 12 hours each day for a long period of 180 days. This was according to Counsel for the respondent-Board permissible under the Regulations. All the same, if the petitioner was in a position to produce material to show that he was not actually using the connected load for the number of hours and the number of days for which the bill has been raised, the authorities could examine the same and redetermine the amount. That appears to me to be the correct position. It is true that in the absence of any material produced before the authorities by the consumer to establish that the unit was not working for the number of hours or the period for which the bill has been raised, the authorities may be justified in working out the liability on the assumption that the unit was actually making use of the connected load in the manner and for the period sanctioned under regulation 41 (2) of the Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations as in force at the relevant time but any such assumption should be rebuttable by cogent material to the contrary acceptable to the authorities. Interest of justice would therefore be sufficiently served if the first Appellate authority. e. , the Chief Engineer is directed to afford to the petitioner an opportunity of being heard as regards the calculation of the back-billing liability against the petitioner. This writ petition accordingly succeeds, but only to the extent that respondent 2-Chief Engineer shall redetenrrine the liability of the petitioner after affording to it an opportunity of producing whatever material the petitioner may like to produce in support of its version that the unit was not working for the number of hours or the number of days for which the earlier demand had been raised. Depending upon the nature of the material produced, the Chief Engineer shall be entitled to pass a fresh order determining the amount of back-billing charges payable by the petitioner. In the circumstances, however the parties are left to bear their own costs.