Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ application prayer is for quashing the order dated 13-9-1990 passed by the Electrical Inspector, Government of Bihar, Patna in Electric Dispute 13/90 in exercise of the power under Sec. 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) whereby he has held that the respondent No. 2, M/s. Bihar Hotels Ltd. is not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3, 18,039.61 paise as was demanded by the petitioners vide its Supplementary bill dated 17-6-1989. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner Board is Licensee and the respondent No. 2 is consumer. The case of the petitioner is that a meter No. 104122 was installed by them in the premises of the Responded No. 2 to record the consumption of electricity and raising bills. In September 1986, in course of inspection the M.R.T. Division of the Board was found that the meter in question was shown as compared to the Standard Check Meter and accordingly, it is claimed that a report was prepared on the basis of a Test conducted from 25-9-1986 to 29-9-1986 showing that the meter in question was 2,3% slow in K.W.H., 17.21% slow in K.V.A.H. and 10.23% slow in K.V.A. Acopy of the said report has been annexed as Annexure-1. Against in between the period 23-2-1989 to 27-2-1989 the said meter was tested with the help of a Standard Test Meter as a result of which it was found that the said meter was slow by 5.04% in K.W.H. 50.94% in K.V.A.H. and 20.75% in K.V.A. As a result of the above mentiond inspection reports the petitioners sent a Supplementary bill for Re. 3,18,039.61 paise to the respondent No. 2 with forwarding letter, dated 27-6-1989 mentioning the results of the two reports on the basis of which the Supplementary bill was prepared. 3. The Respondent No. 2 in reply wrote a letter to the petitioners on 21-7-1989, contained in Annexure-5, disputing the correctness of the claim of the petitioners that the meter was not correctly recording and alternatively that even if it is accepted that the meter was not correct the petitioners are not authoriesed to serve them with a bill for a period of more than six months. Respondent No. 2 also asserted that there was no testing of meter in September 1986 and the test report of February 1989 is also not correct. It was also stated that despite the demand made by them they were not shown any certificate to assure them that the meter installed to check the existing meter was correct. Besides, on account of the short-fall in the power factor also, the Respondent No. 2 stated that the said test report is incorrect. The Respondent No. 2 also expressed strange that despite own assertion of the petitioners that the meter was wrong since September 1986, they did not take any step to replace the meter with a correct one. Accordingly, they requested the petitioners to withdraw the said supplementary bill, stop further buildings for the current months on the basis of the test report of February 1989, replace the defective meter immediately with a correct one and refund the excess amount charged on the basis of the test report. When the grievance of Respondent No. 2 was not redressed, they filed C.W.J.C. No. 7092 of 1989 in this Court which finally disposed of vide order dated 8-12-1989, contained in Annexure-6, with a direction that they should file an application under Sec. 26 (6) of the Act before the Electrical Inspector, Patna within two weeks and, if any such application is filed, the Electrical Inspector, after hearing the petitioners and the respondent, Board shall consider the grievance made on behalf of the writ petitioner in respect of the supplementary bill in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.P.B.B. and Ors. V/s. Basanti Bai -- and pass any appropriate order preferably within four months. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 2 filed an application raising dispute before the Electrical Inspector, Bihar, Patna which has been disposed of by the impugned order. 4. Despite service of notice no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 nor any appearance was ever filed till the matter was heard in part yesterday. However, today Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate has filed vakaltnama on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. 4. Despite service of notice no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 nor any appearance was ever filed till the matter was heard in part yesterday. However, today Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate has filed vakaltnama on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 5. Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the Impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Electrical Inspector was not legally justified in going into the dispute raised by the petitioners at a belated stage, i.e., only after raising of the supplementary bill. According to him, the Electrical Inspector has also erred in holding that the mode in which the test have been made was manifestly illegal and cannot be endorsed specially when the correctness of check meter installed during the said period was never questioned by the Respondent No. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners were quite competent to hold inspection and fix check meter and record correct reading of the meter provided by them in presence of Respondent No. 2 and once the check meter was fitted and the meter installed in the premises since the earlier one was found defective and reading less consumption than the actual consumption then the authority of the Board is fully empowered to raise the demand by way of supplementary bill. In this regard, he referred to Clause 15.4(b) of the Tarrif Notification dated 17th June, 1983 under which the right of the Board is reserved to serve a supplementary bill in the event of any short or/and wrong charging in any bill of the consumer in respect of the various charges, leviable under the said terrif including the State Electricity duty, etc. According to the learned Counsel, there is no illegality in raising demand by way of supplementary bill dated 17-8-1980. It was for Respondent No. 3 to raise a dispute before the Electrional Inspector under Sec. 20(6) of the Act at the initial stage and on account of their failure to do so cannot now raise any objection with respect to raising bill on the basis of the inspection report submitted by M.R.T. 6. this Court finds it difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Under Sub-sec. this Court finds it difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Under Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 26 of the Act, quantity of supply of electricity is to-be ascertained by means of correct meter in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. The licensee is required to supply meter on consumers furnishing security for the price and enter into an agreement for hire thereof unless the consumer elects to purchase his own meter. Under Sub-sec. (2), it is the responsibility of licensee to keep the meter supplied by them correct and in default of doing so the consumer shall cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the meter and under Sub-sec. (3) if the consumer elects to supply the meter then he is required to keep it correct and in case of default the licensee after giving seven days, notice may cease to supply energy through the meter. Under Sub-sec. (4), the licensee or any person duly authorised have right of access to inspect and test and also to remove the meter, if the meter is found to be otherwise than correct but under its proviso licensee cannot take off or remove the meter if any difference or dispute of the nature described under Sub-sec. (6), has arisen until the matter has been determined as therein provided. Under Sub-sec. (6) either party can make an application for deciding such dispute by an Electrical Inspector and in case, it is found that the meter ceased to be correct the Electrical Inspector has been vested with the power to estimate the amount of energy supplied during such time, not exceeding six months but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter in the absence of fraud, is to be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity. Under its proviso 7 days notice is to be given by such applicant to the other party of his intention to do so. 7. There cannot be any dispute about right of licensee to have access to the meter at any reasonable time on information to consumer and to inspect and test it and for that purpose also to take off and remove it but under proviso to Sub-section (4) the licensee is not at liberty to take off or remove any such meter, if any difference or dispute of the nature described under Sub-sec. (6) has arisenuntil the matter has been determined as therein provided. It is, thus, clear that the disputing party is required to approach the Electrical Inspector. 8. In the present case, undisptedly the difference or dispute as to whether the meter supplied by the petitioners to Respondent No. 2 under Sub-sec. (1) was correct or not, arose at the instance of the petitioners and as such, in my opinion, the disputing party is the licensee and not the consumer and the licensee being the disputing party was under obligation to comply with the provisions of Sec. 26 (6) of the Act but it failed to comply with the same and proceeded to decide by raising the impugned supplementary bill after taking off removing the meter. It is the licensee who took a unilateral decision that the meter was defective. Further more, it is the licensee who estimated as to what must have been the electricity consumed during the period when the meter was defective without any notice to Respondent No. 2. The licensee committed another illegality in raising the supplementary bill for a period in excess of six months which is clearly country to the provisions of Sec. 26 (6) of the Act. As such, in my opinion, the demand raised by the licensee vide their impugned supplementary bill is not valid and fit to be quashed on this ground alone. A reference in this regard can be made to the decision reported in -- at Paragraph 18. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation -- , has also taken similar view. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Basantibai V/s. M.P. Electricity Board, Indore -- , held, that the action of the Board in forwarding supplementary bill on the ground that one of the three phases of meter was not working and actual consumption was not recorded held to be not warranted under the Act and course open was to get dispute decided by Electrical Inspector. Further while considering the scope of Sec. 26 of the Act in case of the dispute whether the meter is correct one or it is faulty and not recording actual consumption of electricity it is held that such decision sequarely falls within the provision of Sec. 26(6) and as such, it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute and the Electricity Board was held to be not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of the energy consumed by the consumer from the one phase which had stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Regal Theatre V/s. M.P.E.B., Rampur, even on consumer disputing claim regarding wrong recording of meter held that it was incumbent on Board to refer dispute to Electrical Inspector for decision and Board could not itself decide that meter is not recording actual consumption. The apex Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors. V/s. Ludhiana Steels Private Ltd. -- , in the absence of the fact that the agreement contains any provision inconsistent with the one contained in Sub-sec. (6) of Section 26 or that the agreement provides for a method (for ascertaining the amount of energy consumed by the respondent) different than the one provided in Sub-section (1) of Sec. 26 rejected the contention of the Counsel for the appellant-Board that the agreement between the parties provides to the contrary, as contemplated by Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 26 and for that reason, the agreement prevails over the provisions of the statute, as being misplaced one. 9. A reference to Clause 15.4(b) of the Tariff by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is completely misplaced. Clause 15.4 empowers the Board to serve a supplementary bill only in the event of detection of any short or/and wrong charging in any bill of the consumer in respect of the various charges, leviable under this tariff including State Electricity duty, etc. and not where there is dispute regarding the correct recording of consumption of electricity by the meter provided by the licensee in the premises. 10. and not where there is dispute regarding the correct recording of consumption of electricity by the meter provided by the licensee in the premises. 10. It is not the case of the petitioners that the imugned supplementary bill has been raised on detection of any short or/and wrong charging in any bill of the consumer in respect of the various charges, leviable under the tariff including the State Electricity duty. Thus, in my opinion, Clause 15.4 of the Tariff has got no application to the facts of the present case. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Clause 18 of Part-I of Annexure-IV of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 which is a model form of Draft supplied. Clause-18 is with respect to accuracy of meters and provides that "should the consumer dispute the accuracy of any meter which is not his own property, he may, upon giving notice and paying the prescribed fee, have the meter tested by the licensee or the Electrical Inspector in accordance with Sec. 26 of the Act. this Court fails to appreciate as to how Clause 18 at all helps the petitioners. In the present case, the consumer, namely, Respondent No. 2, never disputed the accuracy of any meter. I have already noticed above the dispute regarding the accuracy of recording of the meter has been raised by the petitioners and in the present case, there was no question of getting the meter tested by the licensee or the Electrical Inspector at the instance of the consumer, namely, Respondent No. 2. As such reference to Clause 18 by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is completely misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Taking into account the Acts and Rules together, the Electrical Inspector has rightly drawn the inference that the object of the Legislature was that the amount of energy consumed, which would be the basis for determining the charges to be paid by the consumer, must be determinated by the process of meter reading. 12. Taking into account the Acts and Rules together, the Electrical Inspector has rightly drawn the inference that the object of the Legislature was that the amount of energy consumed, which would be the basis for determining the charges to be paid by the consumer, must be determinated by the process of meter reading. It is the cse of the petitioners that they had removed the so-called defective meter after installation of trivectometer only after the second inspection in the year 1989 and the defective meter was not made available for execution and conducting of test for its accuracy under Sub-rules 5 and 6 of Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 by the Electrical Inspector. As such, the Electrical Inspector has rightly found that the correctness of the Check meter installed during the period in question cannot be established in the absence of its test report which the petitioners failed to comply with despite being asked to produce. In fact, the Electrical Inspector was left with no evidence in the absence of the disputed meter, other than the meter reading from April 1989 which cannot indicate that the trend of energy consumption is at par with what was disputed during the period. 13. this Court, thus, does not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.