Judgment ( 1. ) CHALLENGING a demand raised vide supplementary bill dated 26-9-00 annexure P-1 for Rs. 9,32,729/- and claiming refund of a sum of Rs. 5,11,000/-already deposited in pursuance to the aforesaid bill alongwith interest, petitioner has filed this petition against the Electricity Board. ( 2. ) PETITIONER claims to be a Registered Partnership Firm having its registered office at Lala Ka Bazar, Angre Colony, Lashkar, Gwalior. It is stated that the firm is engaged in manufacturing of saw blade and for the said purpose they are having service connection No. 414239. Initially the capacity of the connection provided to the petitioner was 15 HP and the same was enhanced to 85 HP with effect from 6-9-1996. It is stated that at the time of enhancement of load a new meter alongwith CT was installed on 6-9-96 and from Sept. 1996 onwards petitioner received monthly bills which were regularly paid by the petitioner. In none of the bills arrears were indicated at any point of time. ( 3. ) IT is the case of the petitioner that meter reading was taken from the premises of the petitioners Firm by Assist. Engineer of the Board and there was no complaint whatsoever in the matter of consumption of electricity by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 18-9-00 the existing meter was replaced by an electronic meter and at that point of time the multiplying factor of the existing meter was declared as 15 by the respondent Board and on the ground that from sept. 1996 upto the date of replacement of the meter wrong multiple factor of 1. 5 was applied instead of 15, supplementary bills have been sent claiming arrears for the entire period of 4 years. It is stated that in this regard a report annexure P-5 was submitted by the Officers of the Board and it is pursuant to this report that the enhanced supplementary bill is filed. ( 4. ) PETITIONER submits that as the enhancement made was arbitrary and illegal, petitioner submitted various objections and letters and sought for reference of the dispute under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to the Electric Inspector and for proper assessment of the bill. Objections filed by the petitioner and representations are filed as Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively and various other connections are placed on record as Annexures p-8 and P-9. Objections filed by the petitioner and representations are filed as Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively and various other connections are placed on record as Annexures p-8 and P-9. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of repeated communication between the petitioner and the Board, the Electric Inspector and the Board, no action was taken for resolving the dispute by the Electric inspector under Section 26 of the Electricity Act and respondents had threatened disconnection of electricity and even disconnected the electricity in between which compelled the petitioner to deposit various amount for restoration of the electricity connection. Accordingly, it is stated that till filing of this petition because of the coercive action initiated by the Board an amount of rs. 5,77,000/- was deposited by the petitioner. ( 5. ) SHRI R. D. Jain, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner referring to the material available on record argued that once the Asstt. Engineer was checking the meter and had recorded the meter reading and the bills were issued for 4 years during the period Sept. 1996 to 18-9-00 there was no justification for enhancement of the multiplying factor from 1. 5 to 15. Inter alia contending that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and unsustainable, petitioner seeks interference in the matter. Referring to the provisions of section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 so also the provisions of Clause 19 (B)II of the M. P. State Electricity Board General Conditions for supply of electrical Energy and Scale of Misc. and General Charges Shri Jain argues that action of the Board in making recovery of the amount is unsustainable and seeks relief claimed in this petition. ( 6. ) REFUTTING the contentions advanced, Shri K. N. Gupta, learned senior Counsel points out that this is not a case where there is any defect in the meter and because of defects detected in the meter the enhanced supplementary bill is raised. Shri K. N. Gupta points out in this case when the existing meter was replaced by an electronic meter on 18-9-00 a report annexure P-5 was prepared jointly by Officers of the Board in the presence of the petitioners representative. Shri K. N. Gupta points out in this case when the existing meter was replaced by an electronic meter on 18-9-00 a report annexure P-5 was prepared jointly by Officers of the Board in the presence of the petitioners representative. When this report was prepared it was found that in the existing matter multiple factor was indicated as 15 and incorrectly when bills were raised instead of calculating the tariff by applying the ratio of 15 ratio of only 1. 5 was applied. This error has now been corrected by the impugned action and, therefore, Shri K. N. Gupta submits that in various representations petitioner themselves have accepted this fact and were willing to deposit the amount if facility of installments was granted to them. It is stated that considering the aforesaid representation vide Annexure P-21 dated 26-4-01. Board had granted option to the petitioner to pay a lumpsum payment of rs. 2,25,000/- and remaining amount in 24 equal instalments. Petitioner did not accept the same and, therefore, action was taken for disconnecting the electricity and thereafter amounts have been deposited by the petitioner and as on date only a sum of Rs. 2,30,933/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. ( 7. ) IT is also pointed out by Shri K. N. Gupta that this is not a case where , there is any defect in the meter and as there is no dispute with regard to the functioning of the meter, the electricity Inspector has also refused to adjudicate the dispute. It is stated that this is not a case coming within the purview of section 26 of the Electricity Act. Inviting my attention to the communication annexure R-2 received from the office of Electricity Inspector it is pointed out by Shri K. N. Gupta that the Electric Inspector has indicated that this is not a dispute pertaining to any defect in the running of the meter and, therefore, no adjudication under Section 26 is called for. Accordingly, respondents pray for dismissal of the petition. ( 8. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records it is seen that the only dispute between the parties is with regard to the ratio at which the multiple factor is to be applied. According to the petitioner for the period 6-9-96 to 18-9-00 multiplying factor of 1. ( 8. ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records it is seen that the only dispute between the parties is with regard to the ratio at which the multiple factor is to be applied. According to the petitioner for the period 6-9-96 to 18-9-00 multiplying factor of 1. 5 was applied and this has been enhanced to 15 in an arbitrary manner whereas it is the case of the respondents that the actual multiplying factor of the old meter which was replaced by an electronic meter on 18-9-00 was 15 but it was incorrectly noted as 1. 5 and the bills sent. ( 9. ) WHEN the then existing meter was replaced by an electronic meter on 18-9-00 report Exhibit P-5 was prepared by the Executive Engineers and the various authorities. This report indicates that the old meter which was removed was having No. 1413534 and its dialled multiple factor was 10 and its over all multiple factor was 15. Even though the over all multiple factor of this meter is indicated as 15 when the meter was taken out on 18-9-00 for reasons which are not available on record, for all the bills sent from 8-9-96 onwards the multiple factor for calculation of tariff was taken to be 1. 5. It is, therefore, clear that this is a case where mistake was committed by the Board in the matter of applying the multiple factor. The question as to who is responsible for the same is a matter of inquiry and investigation and it is not for this court to go into the said question in these proceedings. However, the fact remains that when the meter was replaced by an electronic meter the particulars of the meter have been noted down and the over all multiple factor is shown to be 15. In such circumstances there was no illegality in the action of the Board in correcting this error and raising supplementary bill as petitioner is required to make payment of the electricity consumed by it by applying the correct multiple factor. Material available on record indicates that the multiple factor of the meter which was replaced on 18-9-00 was 15 and incorrectly the officials of the Board has applied the multiple factor as 1. Material available on record indicates that the multiple factor of the meter which was replaced on 18-9-00 was 15 and incorrectly the officials of the Board has applied the multiple factor as 1. 5 and if this mistake has been corrected there is nothing on record to indicate that correction of this mistake is impermissible being contrary to any statutory rule, regulation or legal provision. ( 10. ) EVEN though in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it is stated that in the verification report of the meter as contained in Annexure R-3 the multiplying factor is shown as 10 this seems to be not correct. Multiplying factor of the meter is indicated in Annexure P-5 and the over all multiplying factor is indicated as 15 whereas the multiplying factor 10 is the dialled multiplying factor of the meter. While making correspondence with the Board the petitioners themselves in their representation Annexure P-20 dated 2-2-01 have made a prayer for deposit of the amount in 36 instalments. Similarly, in certain earlier correspondence made by them as contained in Annexure P-18 on 5-1-01 they have sought for grant of facility of payment of arrears amount in 48 monthly instalments. It is clear that even before filing of this petition petitioner had realised that error was committed by the Board and were willing to deposit the amount if facility of instalments were granted. Board, therefore, by letter dated 26-4-01 Annexure P-21 had given a offer for payment of the amount in 24 equal instalments subject to a lumpsum payment of Rs. 2,25,000/ -. However, now all these questions are not relevant as most of the amount is paid by the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 2,30,930/- is only to be paid. ( 11. ) FROM the documents that have come on record it is clear that according to the terms and conditions governing supply of electricity, the bills were to be raised and payments were to be made by the petitioner after calculating the over all multiplying factor. Over all multiplying factor is calculated by dividing CT Ratio of a meter by the Meter Ratio and multiplying it by the dialled multiple factor. This formula is indicated by the respondents in para 5. 3 of the return. Over all multiplying factor is calculated by dividing CT Ratio of a meter by the Meter Ratio and multiplying it by the dialled multiple factor. This formula is indicated by the respondents in para 5. 3 of the return. In the report Annexure P-5 prepared on 18-9-00 when the old meter was replaced by the electronic meter the CT ratio of the meter is shown as 150/5 and the meter ratio is shown as 100/5. The dialled multiple factor is shown as 10 and if the aforesaid figures are taken for calculating the over all multiple factor the same comes to 15 as the new CT which was installed on 9-6-1997 after enhancement of the load had a capacity of 100/5 Amperes with 150/5 Amperes LTCT. Respondents have, therefore, correctly assessed the multiplying factor and if by mistake the multiplying factor after enhancement of load was continued to be maintained at 1. 5 respondents have not committed any illegality in correcting this mistake and raising supplementary bill when the mistake came to the light on receipt of the meter replacing report Annexure P-5 on 18-9-00. ( 12. ) THE contention of Shri R. D. Jain that the dispute should have been referred to the Electric Inspector and resolved in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the [ Electricity Act is wholly misconceived, as is evident from annexure R-2 issued by the Electricity Inspector, this is a case where the question is with regard to applicability of the correct over all multiplying factor and it is not a case of any error or defect in the meter. Section 26 of the Indian electricity Act, 1910 contemplates various procedures to be followed for resolution of dispute by the Electric Inspector in case of malfunctioning of the meter or any defect or error in recording of electricity consumption in the installed meter. In the present case there is no dispute with regard to recording of electricity consumed by the meter nor is it a case where the meter is found to be defective and, therefore, supplementary bill raised for enhanced amount. There is no dispute with regard to functioning of the meter and, therefore, the electric Inspector and the respondent Board have rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for resolution of the dispute under Section 26 of the Electricity act. ( 13. There is no dispute with regard to functioning of the meter and, therefore, the electric Inspector and the respondent Board have rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for resolution of the dispute under Section 26 of the Electricity act. ( 13. ) AS far as bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 56 for recovery of the entire amount of arrears for more than 4 years is concerned, Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act contemplates a procedure for disconnection of electricity for default of payment where a consumer neglects to pay any electricity dues or charge to a Electric Company. The said provision and the bar created under sub-section (2) of Section 56 will apply to cases where recovery of amount is being made on the ground of negligence on the part of the consumer to pay the electricity dues. It is in such cases that recovery beyond the period of 2 years is prohibited. Present is not a case where action is taken due to default or negligence on the part of the consumer. Present is a case where error in the matter of calculating tariff by the Board is being corrected when the error came to the notice of the Board on 18-9-00. The provision of Section 56 will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 14. ) AS far as applicability of Clause 90 of the terms and conditions for supply of Electricity Act is concerned, the same also relates to recalibration of meters and the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Present is a case where some error in the calculation of tariff made is corrected and there is no material available on record to indicate that the error cannot be corrected. ( 15. ) EVEN though during the course of hearing Shri R. D. Jain had argued that in the report available on record prepared at the time of opening of old meter which was consolidated on 18-9-00 it is indicated that the multiple factor is 10 and reference in this regard was made by Shri Jain to Annexure R-3. I am unable to accept this contention in view of the fact that the multiple factor calculated as indicated herein above after applying the formula comes to 15. I am unable to accept this contention in view of the fact that the multiple factor calculated as indicated herein above after applying the formula comes to 15. In this regard apart from the particulars of the old meter contained in Annexure p-5 the document Annexure R-5 available on record indicates that when the load was enhanced from 15 to 85 and when the meter No. 1413534 was installed its multiple factor was indicated as 1. 5 x 10 which comes to 15. CT capacity of this meter is shown as 150/5 Amperes and the capacity of the meter is shown as 100/5 Amperes. The aforesaid particulars are available in column Nos. 4 and 9 of the document Annexure R-5 which is a document prepared with regard to installation of the meter No. 1413534 on 6-9-96. In this report also the multiple factor is shown as 15. This report is signed not only by the Assitt. Engineers of the board but is also signed by the representative of the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear from this report that when the meter in question was installed on 6-9-96 its multiplying factor was 15 and, therefore, contention of Shri Jain that in the report Annexure R-3 multiple factor is shown as 10 cannot be accepted. ( 16. ) CONSIDERING the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case that have come on record and keeping in view the fact that respondents have only corrected a mistake committed by them in the matter of calculating the electricity dues in the petitioners establishment, I find no case made out for interference. ( 17. ) ACCORDINGLY, petition stands dismissed without any order as to cost. Certified copy as per rules. Writ Petition dismissed.