K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, CJ. ( 1 ) SPECIAL Civil Application was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 21. 08. 1996 issued by the respondent-Electricity Board demanding electricity charges from October, 1995 to April, 1996 and the consequential notices issued for disconnection of electricity supply claiming an amount of Rs. 4,54,686. 49 ps. ( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge found no infirmity in the bill raised and dismissed the special Civil Application against which this letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel Mrs. Sangeeta pahwa appearing for the appellant has submitted that the respondent Board has committed a grave error in raising the supplementary electricity bill after having noticed that the meter was not recording the correct energy consumed. Learned counsel submitted that since the meter was running slow, it had to be considered as a defective meter and, therefore, as per Section 26 (6)of the Indian Electricity Act and Condition no. 20 (a) (iii) the Board should have got the meter inspected by the Electrical Inspector. Learned counsel also submitted that in the instant case, checking squad made inspection on 15. 03. 1996 and noted remarks that PT voltage was not coming to TTB in the meter and therefore, the meter was running slow by 47. 51 % as calculated by the checking squad. Thereafter, CTPT Box : was replaced. Learned counsel submitted that the consumer had agreed to change ctpt without anticipating that additional bill would be raised. In support of her contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and others v. Smt. Basantibai, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 23 . Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in u. P. S. E. B v. Atma Steels and Others, (1998) 2 SCC 597 to contend that if at all there was any defect in the PT Voltage, the meter should have got tested by the electrical Inspector. Learned counsel also made reference to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Bombay Electricity supply and Transport Undertaking v. Lqffans (India) (P) Ltd. , (2005) 4 SCC 327 . ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Ms. Learned counsel also made reference to the decision of the Apex court in the case of Bombay Electricity supply and Transport Undertaking v. Lqffans (India) (P) Ltd. , (2005) 4 SCC 327 . ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Ms. Lilu Bhaya appearing for the respondent Board on the other hand contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 26 of the indian Electricity Act would not apply since the meter was not defective. Learned counsel submitted that the consumer's premises was inspected by the Inspection team on 15. 03. 1996. During inspection, it was noticed that one phase P. T. Voltage is missing and due to that the meter was running slow by 47. 51 %, whereupon the bill for Rs. 4,54,685. 19 ps was raised against the appellant-petitioner for the last six months for the period from October, 1995 to April, 1996 i. e. upto the date of replacement of CTPT i. e. 18. 04. 1996. Learned Counsel also submitted that on the date of checking, the consumer had not raised any objection against the slowness and on the contrary, shown readiness to pay the supplementary bill amount and had also executed one Kabulatnama on 15. 03. 1996 expressing consumer's willingness to pay the amount. Further, consumer had also paid bill amount of Rs. 4,54,685. 19 ps. Now due to delayed payment the Board is charging interest as per the Rules which comes to Rs. 5,82,105. 31 ps. Learned counsel submitted that the supplementary bill was issued in accordance with rules and as per the Conditions of Supply and Misc. Charges, for supply of electrical energy and for last six months. Consumer had accepted the bill and not raised any objections. Learned counsel submitted that as per condition No. 20 (a) (iii) of the Conditions of Supply and Misc. Charges, the bill can be issued for last six months and such supplementary bill was rightly raised against the consumer. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for either sides at length. The consumer's premises was admittedly inspected by the inspection Team on 15. 03. 1996 and the remarks made by the Inspection Team are as follows. "remarks : From the voltages measured as above it is confirm that one P. T. Voltage is not coming to TTB and meter. Due to this, the meter is moving slow by 47. The consumer's premises was admittedly inspected by the inspection Team on 15. 03. 1996 and the remarks made by the Inspection Team are as follows. "remarks : From the voltages measured as above it is confirm that one P. T. Voltage is not coming to TTB and meter. Due to this, the meter is moving slow by 47. 51 % as calculated above the bill for above slowness to be issued as per Board's Rules. " Relying on the record, the Board claimed an amount of Rs. 4,54,685. 49 ps. and a bill to that effect was served on the consumer on 21. 08. 1996. Bill reveals that the Board has charged for six months i. e. upto the date of replacement of CTPT i. e. 18. 04. 1996. Board has no case i that the meter was defective. Consumer, of late, raised a dispute that the meter was defective. If the consumer had such a grievance, the same should have been raised then and there and the consumer should have made a request for getting it tested by the electrical Inspector. Section 26 (6) of the indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides that where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the meter 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. Therefore, in a case where the board takes up a stand that the meter is defective then, it is for the Board to get the meter tested by the Inspector under Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, and similarly if the consumer has got a case that the meter is defective, then the consumer has to make a request for getting the meter tested by the Electrical Inspector. So far as the present case is concerned, no such request. was made by the consumer for getting the meter tested by the Electrical Inspector, on the other hand, the consumer had agreed to pay the' bill. So far as the present case is concerned, no such request. was made by the consumer for getting the meter tested by the Electrical Inspector, on the other hand, the consumer had agreed to pay the' bill. If the Board replaces the meter without consent of the consumer on the ground that the meter was defective without testing original meter by the Electrical inspectorate, then, Board cannot raise such supplementary bill. Above legal position has been settled by the Division Bench of the kerala High Court in the case of Nirmala metal Industries v. K. S. E. B. And others reported in 2006 (3) ILR 267. Reference may also be made to the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Southern India Marine Products Co. v. K. S. E. B. ( 1995 (2) KLT 167 ). ( 6 ) APEX Court in the case of Bombay electricity Supply and Transport undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd. (Supra) has taken the view that if dispute arises as to correctness of the meter, both the licensee and the consumer can seek reference to the Electrical Inspector either at the option of the consumer or at the option of the licensee. Consumer had no case that the meter was defective. If that be so, the consumer could have sought for a reference to the Electrical Inspector. Learned counsel for the consumer placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of U. P. S. E. B v. Anna Steels and others, (1998) 2 SCC 597 contended that the CTPT was defective, therefore, it should have been sent to the Electrical inspector for testing. Such a contention was not raised by the consumer at the appropriate time. Even otherwise, the board has raised the Bill only upto the date of replacement of CTPT i. e. 18. 04. 1996 and hence, would not affect the claim made for the earlier period. Assuming there was any defect in the ctpt, the consumer could also have made a request for referring it to the Electrical inspector, the same was not done earlier. Above being the factual situation, we find no error in the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent appeal, therefore, lacks merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, Civil application for stay also stands rejected. Above being the factual situation, we find no error in the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent appeal, therefore, lacks merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, Civil application for stay also stands rejected. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondent-Board to allow the appellant-petitioner-consumer to pay the balance amount due in six equal monthly installments commencing from 1st June, 2009. If there is any default in payment of any installment, it is open for the respondent board to recover the entire amount. (RRS) (Appeal Dismissed)