ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.1995 passed by learned single Judge in CWJC No. 1622 of 1993 (R) by which the writ application was disposed of with certain directions to the respondents. 2. The writ application was filed by the petitioner/appellant for quashing the order dated 31.7.1991 passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Dhanbad Area Electricity Board, by which he had rejected the representation filed by the petitioner. Petitioner also prayed for quashing the bill for the period from April. 1981 to March. 1989 amounting to Rs. 11,00,481/-. 3. Petitioner is High Tension Consumer and originally having connected load of 150 KVA. In 1988, the connected load was reduced from 150 KVA to 115 KVA by virtue of an agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent-Board and new meter was installed and the multiplying factor of the same meter was 20/3. Petitioners case was that in between 1985 to 1989 inspections were made on several occasions and multiplying factor was found to be 20/3. However, on 7.7.89 inspection was made by the inspecting team of the Board and it was reported that multiplying factor should be 10 instead of 20/3. It was further reported that 1/2 hr. tripping CKT was not working and that maximum demand indicator did not move beyond 18 and further that meter needs replacement. On the basis of inspection report the Electrical Superintending Engineer informed the petitioner that multiplying factor should have been applied as 10 but due to oversight billing was done taking multiplying factor as 20/3. Consequently a bill of Rs. 11,00,481 /- was raised. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid bill by filing CWJC No. 1832 of 1989. It is contended by the petitioner that the writ application was ultimately disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to the representation before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer and the later will decide the dispute raised by the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order petitioner filed representation which was disposed of by the General Manager on 31.7.1991. It appears that before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer the petitioner raised various questions including that the demand raised by the Board was barred by limitation and it was a case of defective meter and the only authority to decide the claim is the Electrical Inspector. It appears that before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer the petitioner raised various questions including that the demand raised by the Board was barred by limitation and it was a case of defective meter and the only authority to decide the claim is the Electrical Inspector. The General Manager decided both the issues against the petitioner and held that the correct multiplying factor is 10 and the Board is justified in raising the bill taking multiplying factor 10 instead of 20/3. Petitioner then challenged the aforesaid order passed by the General Manager- cum-Chief Engineer by filing the instant writ application being CWJC No. 1622/1991 (R). The learned single Judge after considering catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts has held that the demand raised by the Board cannot be held to be barred by limitation. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge that claim of the Board cannot be held to be barred by limitation. Recently, in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and Ors. v. Green Rubber Industries and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 699 and in the case of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, BSEB and Ors. v. Rajeshwar Singh and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 706 , the Supreme Court observed that so long as the agreement between the consumer and the Board remain valid and enforceable the liability arising out of the agreement continues till determination of the agreement. 4. So far other issues as to whether it was a case of defective meter or a wrong meter reading, the learned single Judge held as under:-- "In the instant case, it is not very clear whether the present dispute is purely a dispute with regard to wrong meter reading covered by Section 26 or it was a case of wrong billing by oversight. It appears from Annexure 9. letter of the Electrical Superintending Engineer dated 20.9.89 that supplementary bill was raised on account of short charges from 1981-82 to 1988-89 due to wrong application of multiplying factor of 20/3 instead of actual multiplying factor 10. As stated earlier, on series of checks, multiplying factor was found to be 20/3. After lapse of about 7 years, it was found that multiplying factor was 10 and not 20/3. It is not explained as to how this happened. As stated earlier, on series of checks, multiplying factor was found to be 20/3. After lapse of about 7 years, it was found that multiplying factor was 10 and not 20/3. It is not explained as to how this happened. I, therefore, quash the order of the General Manager (Annexure 13) and direct him to first consider whether the dispute should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector or Chief Engineer himself was competent to decide the dispute in terms of Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement. If he finds that the Chief Engineer after considering the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, is satisfied that the supplementary bill raised against the petitioner could not be raised without first Electrical Inspector deciding the dispute, he shall request the Electrical Inspector to dispose of the representation of the petitioner (Annexure 10). In case, he finds that the dispute does not touch Section 26 of the Electricity Act, he shall decide the matter afresh and the petitioner shall not raise the question of limitation. The General Manager shall decide other questions raised by the petitioner before him. The question whether the Board is entitled to raise supplementary bill for the period April, 1981 to March, 1989 after lapse of 8 years is left open to be decided by the General Manager though Indian Limitation Act is not applicable, as held by me. The General Manager shall discuss all the questions raised by the petitioner in his representation except the question of limitation. The matter may be decided within a period of six months from today. Till the dispute is not decided, the interim order passed by this Court dated 19.8.1991 shall remain operative. There will be no order as to costs." 5. From perusal of the finding recorded by the learned single Judge as quoted herein above, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was not right in holding that the dispute could be settled in terms of Clause 13 of the H.T. Agreement. Clause 13 actually deals with the claim with regard to remission in Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges. Clause 13 actually deals with the claim with regard to remission in Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges. Admittedly, it is not a case where the appellant/ consumer claimed any remission in Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges, rather it is a case where the consumer/appellant claims that since meter was defective therefore, the appropriate authority is Electrical Inspector and the matter shall have to refer to him for adjudication under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. 6. As noticed above, from 1985 to 1989 inspections were made by the Inspecting team of the Board on several occasions and it was reported that multiplying factor was 20/3. It was only in the inspection made on 7.7.89, it was reported that the multiplying factor should be 10 instead of 20/3. It was also reported that the meter needs replacement. Learned single Judge held that, it is not a clear case of dispute with regard to wrong meter reading nor it is a clear case of wrong billing by oversight. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that it is a case of defective meter and therefore the matter is to be decided by the Electrical Inspector. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the Inspection Report dated 7.7.1989, we are of the view that the meter ought to have been referred by the learned single Judge to the Electrical Inspector instead of Chief Engineer. We, therefore, modify the judgment to the extent that the dispute raised by the appellant with regard to defective meter shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector. The Electrical Inspector shall dispose of the representation, that shall be filed by the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of filing of the representation. It is made clear that the Electrical Inspector shall first record his finding as to whether the dispute raised by the appellant relates to defective meter and then proceed to dispose of the dispute in accordance with law. 8. In the event, if the Electrical Inspector finds that it is not a case relating to defective meter then the appellant shall be liable to pay the demand raised by the Board in the impugned bills. 8. In the event, if the Electrical Inspector finds that it is not a case relating to defective meter then the appellant shall be liable to pay the demand raised by the Board in the impugned bills. Needless to say that if the petitioner/appellant succeeds in the case before the Electrical Inspector then the amount paid on the basis of order passed by this Court shall be adjustable against the future bills. 9. With the aforesaid observation arid direction, this appeal is disposed of.