Honble Mrs. MISRA, J.–This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.9.1991 passed by the learned single judge by which the writ petition filed by the respondent M/s Modern Syntex (India) Ltd., was allowed and it was directed therein that the dispute between the petitioner-respondent herein, and the appellant Rajasthan State Electricity Board, pertaining to the alleged defective meter of the respondent, be referred to the Electrical Board, pertaining to the alleged defective meter of the respondent, be referred to the Electrical Inspector in accordance with S. 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the demand, if any, should be raised only thereafter. (2). The appellant-Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereinafter shortly referred to as `the Board), instead of complying with the directions of the learned single judge for taking steps to get an Electrical Inspector appointed for checking the meter of the respondent consumer, preferred this appeal and has challenged the judgment and order of the learned single judge. (3). The principal ground of challenge by the appellant-Board is that the respondent-consumer having conceded to the fact that there was defect in the meter, which was checked on 15.1.1989, on which date the respondent consumer had agreed for rectification of the meter, the appellant Board was under no obligation to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector and it was legally permissible for the Board to raise an additional demand for the electricity consumed for the last six months on the basis of their subjective calculation. (4). In order to appreciate the controversy it is essential to relate to the relevant background under which the dispute arose which are as follows:– (5). The respondent-consumer M/s Modern Syntex (India) Ltd. admittedly is a consumer of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board, now substituted by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (referred to as `the Nigam) after dissolution of the Board, and all the electricity bills for consumption were paid by the respondent-consumer till December 1988. On 15.1.1989, however, some officers of the vigilence of the Board on checking, found the meter of the respondent-consumer to be defective and according to them the respondent also conceded that the mater was defective and, therefore, a demand was raised for the period of six months preceding 15.1.1989. Consequently, an additional bill for the preceding six months amounting to Rs. 2,54,017/- had been raised against the respondent-consumer. (6). Consequently, an additional bill for the preceding six months amounting to Rs. 2,54,017/- had been raised against the respondent-consumer. (6). The respondent-consumer feeling aggrieved with this demand, filed a writ petition before the learned single judge of this court where-after hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned single judge delivered a reasoned judgment and order on 5.9.1991 after taking notice of S. 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and found that the dispute regarding the fact as to whether the meter is correct or faulty had to be referred to the Electrical Inspector and without resorting to this procedure, the Board is not competent to issue supplementary bill or demand in respect thereof or disconnect the electricity connection for non payment of such a demand. The learned single judge in support of this view also relied upon the judgment and order delivered in the case of MPSEB & Others vs. Smt. Basanti Bai, 1988 (1) SCC 23 , and therefore, the learned single judge was pleased to allow the writ petition but granted liberty to the Board to raise the additional demand after checking of the meter by the Electricity Inspector in accordance with S. 26(6) of the Act of 1910 as recorded hereinbefore. (7). Learned counsel for the appellant Board now substituted by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., as already indicated hereinbefore, has argued with vehemence that the order of learned single judge is fit to be quashed and set aside as the respondent-consumer at the time of checking of the meter had conceded to the factual position that the meter was defective and, therefore, the then RSEB was legally justified in raising the supplementary bill even without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. (8). We have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the counsel in support of the stand of the Board/Nigam and have reached to a conclusion that had it been a case where merely a common sense point of view based on circumstantial evidence could be taken and inference could be drawn by the appellant, perhaps it might have been possible to accept this argument. But we, at the appellate stage, are dealing with the reasoning assigned by the learned single judge which has to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 wherein S. 26 is explicitly clear about the mode and manner in which the checking of defective meters can be done. For this purpose it is essential to quote sub-section (6) of S.26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which lays down as follows:– ``Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is ceased to be correct or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity: Provided that before either a licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under this Sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days notice of his intention so to do. (9). A bare perusal of the aforesaid Section clearly indicates that where any meter is found to be defective at the time of checking, then it is open for any party who is aggrieved with the defective meter, to file an application before the competent authority, for appointment of an Electrical Inspector and after its checking, if the Electrical Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is defective, only in that event, it can raise an additional demand for the preceding six months to the date of checking of the meter and before doing so a notice, obviously, is required to be given. (10). (10). In the instant matter, the counsel for the Board/Nigam has laid much emphasis on the fact that the respondent-consumer had agreed to accept the position that the meter was defective; but it is difficult to accept this assertion without any evidence to that effect and in absence of even a chit of paper signed by the respondent that he had agreed to the extent of conceding that the meter was defective. In this context annexure-3 to the writ petition clearly indicates that the consent was not given by the consumer regarding the defect in the meter as the signature of the consumer is not found on this document. However the counsel for the appellant is disputing even this factual position and is asserting incessantly that the consumer had conceded to the fact that the meter was defective. (11). However, we do not consider it appropriate to enter into this aspect of the matter which would be a matter of appreciation of evidence which is not on record. But in so far as the legal position is concerned we have noticed that the provision under S.26 assigns the duty and the power to the Electrical Inspector only to check a defective meter and hence we are of the opinion that the learned single judge was not in error in any way when he had concluded that the dispute in regard to the defective meter had to be decided by the Electrical Inspector as to whether the meter was correct or faulty in view of S. 26 of the Act of 1910. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, in our perception is not fit to be accepted and hence the reason assigned by the learned single judge requires no interference. (12). It is further relevant to take note of the provisions enumerated under S. 26 which is surely fraught with great wisdom and justice as it checks the interest of both the consumer and supplier of electricity for it is not uncommon that there are unscrupulous consumers as also unscrupulous agents of the Board who connive and raise illegal demands either way and, therefore, a competent authority alone has to be assigned this onerous task and this authority is perceived to be the Electrical Inspector under the Act who alone is assigned this statutory duty of checking the meter. The Board is expected to apprise itself of the accurate legal position under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and, therefore, it was under an obligation under S. 26 of the Act to file an application for referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector when the meter was found defective. Therefore, the view taken by the learned single judge that the supplementary bill on account of defective meter could not have been raised without the meter being checked through the Electrical Inspector, which is the requirement of S. 26(6) of the Act of 1910, which the respondent-consumer had also requested for, is fit to be upheld as it is clearly recorded in the impugned order that the respondent consumer after paying the entire amount for the period of six months which had been demanded, had also filed an application on 3.2.1989 for checking of the meter and for this purpose had also deposited Rs. 200/- towards testing charges-meaning thereby that they were anxious that the meter be checked through an Electrical Inspector for arriving at a just conclusion. The appellant inspite of this, did not take any steps for appointment of an Electrical Inspector. We have further noticed that if in fact any officer of the Board found that the meter was defective, it could have sealed the meter then and there so that it could inspire confidence which could have been checked later by the Electrical Inspector. But it seems that they have resorted to their own ex parte remedy by raising additional demand without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector for checking of the meter. (13). The counsel for the Board however still reiterated his contention and asserted that the meter was found defective by the officers of the Board and the said position was accepted by the respondent-consumer completely missing that the signature of the consumer in regard to its concession was missing and the oral concession if any, has no legal sanctity. (13). The counsel for the Board however still reiterated his contention and asserted that the meter was found defective by the officers of the Board and the said position was accepted by the respondent-consumer completely missing that the signature of the consumer in regard to its concession was missing and the oral concession if any, has no legal sanctity. In our view the officers of the Board ought to have known that they had neither the authority to rectify the meter nor they had the authority to permit the respondent-consumer to agree to such a situation as in our opinion the officers should have sealed the meter instantly on that very day when the meter was checked after which the application for appointment of Electrical Inspector should have been filed by them for an objective and impartial report which is the statutory requirement under the Indian Electricity Act. No steps in this regard was at all taken by the Board/Nigam and straightaway a demand was raised overlooking the legal and statutory requirement under the Act of 1910. Therefore, we do not find any substance in this argument also. (14). Consequently we find no merit in this appeal and hence the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.