JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner Electricity company has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2002 passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Secretary, Energy & Petrochemical Department, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.31 of 2002 as well as the impugned order dated 07.06.2002 passed by the respondent No.3 I.e. Electrical Inspector. 2. This Court has issued rule on 21.06.2004. after service of rule, the respondent No.1 filed affidavit-in-reply on 15.01.2004. 3. Heard Mr. M.D. Rana, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is granted HT connection of 300 KVA at Vijapur for its industrial puropse and its consumer No. is 19810. On 29.02.2000, the meter was replaced by the 'Static Meter'. When the checking squad of the petitioner Company examined the meter on 04.06.2002, it was found that the meter was slow by 29.465%. Therefore, immediately panchnama was drawn which was duly signed by the representative of the petitioner No.1 The said meter was checked with the help of Accue-check instrument and it was noticed that the meter was slow, but the slowness was due to wrong working as mentioned in the panchnama. Thereupon the respondent No.1 was sent a supplementary bill of Rs.10,73,282.09 ps. For 2,15,893 Units for the period commencing from March 2000 i.e. the day on which the static meter was placed till the date of the checking by the checking squad of the petitioner Company. 5. Being aggrieved by the said supplementary bill, the respondent No.1 approached the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was nothing wrong in the meter or with the meter and the slowness was due to wrong wiring and because of that, the respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the application moved by the respondent No.1. However, the respondent No.3 vide his order dated 07.06.2002 allowed the said appeal by holding that the meter was moving slow by 29.465% and the respondent No.1, therefore, be issued a supplementary bill only for the period of six months. 6. However, the respondent No.3 vide his order dated 07.06.2002 allowed the said appeal by holding that the meter was moving slow by 29.465% and the respondent No.1, therefore, be issued a supplementary bill only for the period of six months. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary, respondent No.2 herein, who vide his order dated 24.10.2002 has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Electrical Inspector. 7. It is these two orders which are under challenge in the present petition. 83. Mr. M. D. Rana, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the Electrical Inspector has jurisdiction only when difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-Section (1) of the Act is or is not correct. He has further submitted that in the instant case, there was no question of the meter being incorrect but the issue was of wrong wiring resulting into slowness of the meter and, therefore, the respondent No.3 could not have exercised his jurisdiction which never vested in him. When the dispute was not within the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Indian Electricity Act, the appropriate remedy available to the respondent No.1 would be to move the Civil Court. Even otherwise, the Electrical Inspector has no power to reduce the period to the extent of just six months on the ground that the meter was moving slow because of inherent defect in the meter. As such, the respondent No.3 can exercise the powers only when there is incorrectness in the meter. When the issue of the jurisdiction of the electrical inspector and the issuance of the supplementary bill, does not fall within the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Act, there is no question of entertaining the application filed by the respondent No.1 and even on that ground, the order passed by the Secretary in appeal is also null and void. In support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Belwal Spinning Mills Limited and others V/s. UP State Electricity Board and another, 1997 (6) SCC 740 wherein it is held that on a conjoint reading of various sub-Sections of Section 26 of the Act, it is evident that consumption of electricity or electrical quantity in the supply, shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and the meter and other apparatus for recording the consumption of electricity by a consumer will be deemed to be correct if the recording is within the permissible limit of error as prescribed. It is further held that if the dispute as to the correct status of the meter or other Electrical apparatus is raised either by the licensee or by the consumer by making reference to the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26, then such dispute can be determined only by the Electrical Inspector and the meter or apparatus cannot also be changed by the licensee unless the dispute is resolved by the Electrical Inspector. If there is a dispute as to the proper functioning of the meter or check meter or other electrical apparatus under sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Electrical Inspector upon entering the reference would determine the dispute as to the proper functioning of the meter and other electrical apparatus and in the event, Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter ceased to be correct, he is to determine the quantum of the electricity consumed during the statutory period referred to in Sub-section (6). 9. Mr. Rana further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking V/s. Lafans (India) Private Limited and another, 2005 (4) SCC 327 wherein it is held that Section 26 (6) applies only when meter is not correct. It happens when the meter runs slow or fast as a result of which it does not record correct reading of amount of electrical energy supplied. But where the meter is burnt or is completely non-functional, Section 26 (6) is inapplicable because the burnt meter or a non-functional meter does not record any supply of energy, which virtually means no meter 10. Based on the aforesaid decisions, Mr. But where the meter is burnt or is completely non-functional, Section 26 (6) is inapplicable because the burnt meter or a non-functional meter does not record any supply of energy, which virtually means no meter 10. Based on the aforesaid decisions, Mr. Rana has strongly contended that the impugned orders dated 24.10.2002 passed by the Secretary confirming the order dated 07.06.2002 passed by the Electrical Inspector is absolutely illegal, unjust and contrary to the facts and evidence on record as well as contrary to the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and hence, both the orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 11. Mr. Jani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed on 15.01.2004 and contended that the slowness in the meter was due to fault in Current Transformer Potential Transport (CTPT). It was also found that the slowness in the meter was because of the screw being loose in the TTB. Thus, there was a defect in the meter and, therefore, the respondent No.1 has rightly preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section 26 (6) of the Act. The respondent No.3 has entertained his application and again checked the meter and after proper examination, he came to the conclusion that the meter was slow and hence, by exercising his power, he directed the petitioner Company to issue supplementary bill for the period of six months. This order of the respondent No.3 was confirmed by the respondent No.2. He has further submitted that the petitioner has raised the point of law to the effect as to whether the respondent No.3 had any jurisdiction to entertain the application preferred by the respondent No.1 under the provisions of Section 26 (6) in as much as, according to the petitioner, there was a fault in the wiring of the meter and there was no fault actually in the meter itself. Hence, the respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to entertain the application preferred by the respondent No.1. There is no substance in this contention as the record of the case clearly shows that due to fault in the TTB and the CTPT, the meter was running slow and in that regard, since the CTPT and TTB are considered to be parts of the meter, it cannot be said that the meter was not faulty. There is no substance in this contention as the record of the case clearly shows that due to fault in the TTB and the CTPT, the meter was running slow and in that regard, since the CTPT and TTB are considered to be parts of the meter, it cannot be said that the meter was not faulty. He has further submitted that Section 26 (6) of the Act clearly makes the provision that whether 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 tested by the Electrical Inspector. Since TTB and CTPT are parts of the meter itself and they cannot be said to be different components other than the meter, meter can certainly be said to be faulty and the Electrical Inspector has rightly exercised his jurisdiction to decide the application of the respondent No.1. Mr. Jani further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Hydro Electrical Power Supply Company Limited and others V/s. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1581 wherein it is held that the current transformer means an apparatus within the meaning of Section 26 (7) of the Act and once it has been held as an apparatus in view of Section 26 (7) of the Act, it is deemed to be a part of the meter and, therefore, any fault in the current transformer would mean that there is a fault in the meter itself and, therefore, the dispute under Section 26 (6) can be decided by the Electrical Inspector. 12. Mr. Jani further submitted that the Electrical Inspector has passed a reasoned order and no fault can be attributed to the said order merely on the basis of the lack of jurisdiction. The slowness in the meter was due to faulty wiring or defective wiring. The record clearly states that it was due to the fault in the CTPT that the meter was running slow and the CTPT is a part of the meter itself and any fault in CTPT would amount to be a fault in the meter and, therefore, the Electrical Inspector has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 26 (6) of the Act. He has, therefore, submitted that since there being concurrent finding of both the authorities below, this Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petition should be dismissed. 13. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the orders passed by the authorities below in light of the statutory provisions contained in Section 26 (6) of the Act and the decided case law on the subject, the Court is of the view that there is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Electrical Inspector. The case clearly falls within the purview of Section 26 (6) of the Act. The distinction sought to be made by the petitioner on the ground that there was no error in the meter, but there was an error in the wiring and hence, the Electrical Inspector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 26 (6) of the Act had no merits at all. There is no dispute about the fact that the defect is found in CTPT and the screw was loose in the TTB. By virtue of that defect, the meter was running slow. Hence, all these apparatus are part and parcel of the meter, the meter can be considered to be a faulty one and it is only because of that, it was running slowly. Once the Court accepts that the meter was not correct, the Electrical Inspector can certainly assumes the jurisdiction under Section 26 (6) and once such jurisdiction is validly assumed, he has every power to direct the petitioner Company to raise the supplementary bill for the period of six months which is the statutory permissible limit. 14. Since the above contention is not accepted either by the authorities or by this Court and there is no other contention raised challenging the order passed by the Electrical Inspector and confirmed by the Secretary, there is no reason for this Court to disturb the said orders. In the above view of the matter, both the impugned orders are hereby confirmed and the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged without any order as to costs.