JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing the bill Ex. 5 produced by the respondent./petitioner which was issued by the then R.S.E.B. for the excess electricity consumption from March, 85 to January, 87. The judgment was delivered with reference to the decision of the Supreme court in case of M.P. Electricity Board and others v. Basanti Bai, reported in A.I.R. 1988 SC page 71 . 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent/petitioner has established an industrial unit in the name of M/s. Bharat Industrial Corporation in the Industrial Estate at Jodhpur and was a consumer of electricity to be supplied by the Board. For the period of the bill in question, the petitioner's industrial unit has a sanctioned load of 49 H.P. On 16.5.85, the A.En. (Vigilance) has visited the site and found on inspection that the meter runs reverse on applying heater load in one phase. He has also reported about actual CT ratio MF and MF taken for billing to be verified by A.En. (0 & M). However, no corrective action was taken or suggested. Nor any suspicion of tampering was expressed. The factory site was again visited by the Vigilance on 27.9.86. It was again found that one phase of meter still runs in reverse direction on heater lord. The Vigilance party recorded its note as under : " ehVj dh isuy lhy djus ls igys yksM ij psd djus ij ik;k x;k fd ehVj vyx&vyx Qsl ij lgh Mk;jsD'ku ij ?kqe jgk gS ysfdu ghVj yksM ij ,d Qsl vHkh Hkh mYVk ?kwerk gSA lks ehVj pSat djkdj VsfLaVx djk;k tk;sA " Yet again, the vigilance visited the factory premises on 29.11.86 and in item No. 5 of the report, it was stated that the meter checked on heater load on each phase and found reverse on one phase and found forward on two other phases. In the remark column, it was stated that (1) Cap. should be provided. (2) Meter and the C.T. be changed at checking C.Ts. 4. It appears that in pursuance to this, on 23.1.87, again the Vigilance party came. In the remark column, it was stated that (1) Cap. should be provided. (2) Meter and the C.T. be changed at checking C.Ts. 4. It appears that in pursuance to this, on 23.1.87, again the Vigilance party came. This time, it was stated by the vigilance party that "One phase meter found reverse on meter box opened wiring checked & it was found that one phase CT connection is reverse. R & B phase PT to meter found interchanged. The wiring set right and meter checked on each phase and found in forward direction." 5. As per the last report, the Capacitor has not been installed. 6. On the premise that since the Vigilance is pointing out since May, 85, one phase of meter was found to be moving on reverse side on heated load, a bill was raised for the period of March, 85 to January, 87. When the wiring in the meter was corrected and the meter was found to be in order thereafter giving the correct reading, a supplementary bill (Ex. 5) was raised for charging the difference by estimating the amount of excess electricity consumed than what was shown in the meter reading during this period. The bill Exhibit-5A was also raised for domestic charges at the factory which included the current charges as well as additional charges for the period for which Exhibit-5 has been raised. 7. After obtaining the requisite documents, present writ petition was filed by the respondents as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1928/88 inter alia on the ground that there being no allegation of tampering with or fraud on the part of the petitioner, it was at best case of defective meter and, therefore, no demand could have raised by the Electricity Board by itself. The matter ought to have been referred to the Electrical Inspector of the State under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 who had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the meter and estimate the amount of electricity consumption, r if any, to be recovered from the consumer on account of incorrect due to defect in the meter. 8. The matter ought to have been referred to the Electrical Inspector of the State under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 who had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the meter and estimate the amount of electricity consumption, r if any, to be recovered from the consumer on account of incorrect due to defect in the meter. 8. The respondent's Maim that since it was a case of finding that CT connections in the meter were reversed and R &- B of PT to the meter were found interchanged, it was clearly a case of tampering by the petitioner, therefore, if fell outside the purview of reference to the Electrical Inspector. It was within the domain of the Board to raise appropriate demand on finding that the meter was not reading correctly because of the said tampering with. 9. The learned single judge, without considering the details of the facts, invoked the principle enumerated in the case of M.P. Electricity Board (supra) and allowed the writ petition by quashing the bills stated aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 10. The contentions raised before us are on the same lines as has been noticed by us above. 11. From the perusal of the material placed before us, one thing is certain that to the knowledge of the consumer as well as to the Board, since May, 1985, it was known that one phase of the matter was running reverse on heated load and was not giving the correct reading of consumption but was giving a short reading. The meter has been checked as many as four times at varying intervals between May, 85.to January, 87 finding the same defect. It was only in January, 87 that the vigilance party became little more adventurous to open the meter to find the reason for such short reading, corrected the same and placed the meter in right direction. It is also true that in none of its report, the vigilance party had suggested that it was or may be a case of tampering with the meter by the consumer. 12. It is also true that in none of its report, the vigilance party had suggested that it was or may be a case of tampering with the meter by the consumer. 12. Therefore, on the one hand, the respondent/petitioner consumer of the electricity has been benefitted by making less payment than what due to him on account of electrical consumption during that period, the present appellant did not level any accusation until filing the return to the writ that it was case of tampering with the meter by the petitioner. The demand raised against the petitioner was since stayed by this Court in the first instance by the learned single judge and thereafter since the said demand was quashed, no amount for the period has been paid by the petitioner so far to the Board or its successor in interest nor because the pendency of this matter, the matter could be referred and decided by the Electrical Inspector. 13. In the facts and circumstances, it is not the case that nothing was due from the respondent/petitioner to be paid to the Board albit the only question remains that who should have determine the amount payable by the respondents. 14. In the facts and circumstances, we deem it proper that with the passage of time, the appeal should be disposed of with the following directions : (i) The matter should be referred to the Electrical Inspector with the aforesaid reports to give a finding that whether it was a pure and simple case of defect in meter or a case of tampering with the meter by the consumer. (ii) The Electrical Inspector shall also assess that because of the defect found in May, 85, how much short reading by the meter will result than what has been recorded by it and to determine the amount that may be payable by the respondent/petitioner on account of such short reading of consumption by the meter. (iii) In case, it is found that the meter was found defective, the liability of the respondent/petitioner shall be confined to the amount determined by the Electrical Inspector. (iii) In case, it is found that the meter was found defective, the liability of the respondent/petitioner shall be confined to the amount determined by the Electrical Inspector. (iv) However, if it is found by the Electrical Inspector that the reason of reverse running of one phase as found out by the vigilance in January, 87, was as a result of tampering with the meter by the consumer, the consequences may follow against the respondent/petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law by determining the amounts payable for excess consumption of the electricity for which, no amount has been paid including penalty or 1 other consequences that may follow against him in accordance with law. (v) However, one thing is also apparent on the face of the record of this case that the respondent/petitioner who was at least liable to pay for the correct reading of consumption of electricity consumed i by him has paid lesser amount and has not made the payment since May, 85. He has already enjoyed the benefit of non-payment of amount demanded from him for such a long period. The consumption of electricity is not a one time transaction but it is on going process. The electricity is consumed in advance and payment is made later. We see no reason that the Board should further be deprived of the amount by allowing the petitioner not to pay any amount for the excess consumption made by him during the aforesaid period without payment to the Board. 15. Keeping in view all these, in our opinion the justice of the case demands that the petitioner/respondent deposits the amount demanded from him provisionally to be adjusted in accordance with the outcome of findings by the Electrical Inspector. In view thereof, we further direct that, (a) The respondent/petitioner to make payment of the impugned bills Exhibits-5 and 5A provisionally within a period of fifteen days from today subject to the final result of the Electrical Inspector. (b) The matter shall be referred to the Electrical Inspector, if not already referred, by the respondent Board or successor in interest of the Board, within a period of two weeks. (c) The Electrical Inspector shall give its finding after affording an opportunity to the respondent/petitioner and the Board, within a further period of two months. (b) The matter shall be referred to the Electrical Inspector, if not already referred, by the respondent Board or successor in interest of the Board, within a period of two weeks. (c) The Electrical Inspector shall give its finding after affording an opportunity to the respondent/petitioner and the Board, within a further period of two months. (d) If the respondent/petitioner fails to make payment, he shall be liable for interest @ 12% per annum with annual rest for the aforesaid amount for the period from May, 85 until the actual date of payment. (e) If the amount so demanded vide Exhibit-5 and 5A is more than the sum so determined, it shall be adjusted, in the future bills. (f) If the amount is less, then the same will be paid by the petitioner as per such additional demand. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. No orders as to costs.Appeal Disposed of as above. *******