JUDGMENT R.S. GARG, J 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The complaint of the petitioner appears to be that an electronic meter was fixed in his premises on 24th February, 2000 but immediately thereafter it was found that the meter was not recording correctly. It appears that the request made by the petitioner fell on the deaf ears of the Electricity Board. After sometime State Electricity Board proposed to put a check meter. Hence, check meter was installed in the petitioners premises on 10th June, 2000. It was detected even by the authorities that the electronic meter provided to the petitioner was not recording correctly. Later on, on 9th August, 2000 the authority visited the petitioner's premises and found that the meter installed in the premises of the petitioner was not recording correctly. The petitioner, in support of his contentions that the meter was not recording correctly and was inspected by the officers of the Electricity Board, is placing his strong reliance upon Annexure-3. From perusal of Annexure-3 and the observations annexed with the first page would clearly appear that KWH KVA H, and KVA were being recorded 114%, 102.6% and 94% fast. In substance the authorities found that the meter was recording almost double of the consumption. It appears that on basis of the meter which was not recording correctly the State Electricity Board raised a demand to the extent of Rs.6,43,537,93. The petitioner submits that even on findings of the Electricity Board as contained in Annexure-3 the meter was recording double then, the Board had to show its bona fide and it was required to reduce the bill and charge 50% only. According to him, despite defect in the meter and findings of its own officer, the Board was not justified in raising the said demand. 3. The learned Counsel for the Board has submitted that as there was disputed in relation to the meter and the petitioner was contending that it was defective, the petitioner was required to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. He submits that so long the matter is not finally decided by the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner is obliged to make payment against the raised bill. He submits that so long the matter is not finally decided by the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner is obliged to make payment against the raised bill. A strange argument has been raised by the Board saying that the reading recorded in the check meter installed by the Electricity Board would not be conclusive and the Board would not be bound by the reading recorded in the check meter nor the Board would be bound by the observations made by their inspection team, as contained in Annexure-3. 4. Section 26 (6) of the Act is a complete Code in relation to the meter and provides that the Electrical Inspector would have jurisdiction if the meter is defective. Present is a case where on basis of check report the Board could come to the conclusion that the meter was defective and was recording 100% extra but for the reasons best known to it in a very cavalier manner has filed reply contrary to report of inspection team and has further stated that the installation of check meter would not come in the way of the Board from making demand with reference to and in accordance with the readings recorded by the defective meter. 5. This Court at this stage must hold that a dispute relating to the meter exists in accordance with the provisions of law. The matter will have to be referred to the Electrical Inspector who shall be obliged to decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 26(6) of the Act. 6. Ordinarily it is not expected from the State or any authority, which has the semblance of State specially from the State Electricity Board that they would start making frivolous and misleading statement in this Court to the leading statement in this Court to the effect that the meter was recording correctly. It is not the case of the State Electricity Board that the check meter was bad or the check meter was defective or the check meter was not recording correctly. In accordance with the provisions of the agreement if a check meter is installed by the State Electricity Board then the same is installed to check that the electronic meter earlier installed was recording correctly or not. If that is so, it would be high handedness say that they would not be bound by the report of the check meter. 7. If that is so, it would be high handedness say that they would not be bound by the report of the check meter. 7. It is also to be seen from Annexure-3 that the documents have been signed by the Executive Engineer of the State Electricity Board. The Board has not levelled any allegation against the said Executive Engineer that either he did not discharge the duty in accordance with the law or after having joined his hands or after joining hands with the petitioner had given a wrong statement to the Electricity Board. Ordinarily the State Electricity Board should have been fair enough to contend before the Court that they would correct the bill but unfortunately the Board is proposing to contest. 8. At this stage learned Counsel for the State Electricity Board submitted that if the bills are corrected or final decision is given by the Electricity Board, the Board would revise the bills. It is too late on the part of the Board to say that they would correct the bills. When an authority is in know of a particular fact then it is not expected of the authority that it would act like Shylock and demand a pound of flesh. It is too much on the part of the Board in demanding the said amount. 9. So that as it may, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner must be directed to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector shall be obliged to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner, take into consideration the readings recorded under the check meter and the report submitted by the Officer of the State Electricity Board. After giving proper opportunity to both the parties and hearing then the Electrical Inspector shall decide the matter finally. 10. The petitioner says that the bills were raised for Rs.6,43,537,93 but in fact, he is required to pay only 50%. According to him, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.2,75000/-. This deposited amount, in the opinion of this Court, falls short of amount of 50% of the bill raised. Thus, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the State Electricity Board within 25 days from today. 11. According to him, the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.2,75000/-. This deposited amount, in the opinion of this Court, falls short of amount of 50% of the bill raised. Thus, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the State Electricity Board within 25 days from today. 11. It is, however, made clear that after the said deposit is made and the matter is referred to the Electrical Inspector to the State Electricity Board, shall not disconnect the supply provided to the petitioner. 12. The petition is, as indicated to the extent above, allowed.