Judgment :- Oral Judgment: (S.A. Bobde, J.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.4.1994 passed by the appellate authority under Indian Electricity Act, 1910 setting aside the decision of Electrical Inspector, Nagpur, dated 15.1.1992 and upholding the supplementary electric bill for Rs. 5,53,661.26 for the period from August 1990 to January 1991. 2. On 20.1.1991 during the course of inspection a defect in the electricity meter installed at petitioner's factory premises was noticed. It was detected that no voltage is received at the `B' phase at test terminal block of metering box, so also the internal fuse of C.T.P.T. Unit for `B' phase was blown up and it was revealed that the fuse was blown in the month of July or August 1990. Accordingly, an assessment was made from August 1990 to January 1991 and a revised supplementary bill for Rs. 5,53,661.26 was raised on 27.4.1991 for the aforesaid period. The petitioner then made a representation on 8.5.1991 to the respondents. This Court in W.P. No. 1352 of 1991 filed by the petitioner herein vide its order dated 17.6.1991 directed the Electrical Inspector to decide the said representation dated 8.5.1991 as a dispute under Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act. Eventually, the Electrical Inspector made an Award dated 15.6.1992 reducing the bill to Rs. 02,82,052/. The bill was reduced on the basis that Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act restricts the period of six months immediately prior to the dispute. Since the date of dispute was taken as 25.4.1991, going back for a period of six months, the assessment up to 27.10.1990 was made. Thus, this period was treated as the period for which the meter was defected. The bill was reduced as aforesaid to Rs. 02,82,052/. 3. Aggrieved thereby, Maharashtra State Electricity Board preferred an appeal to the appellate authority under Section 36(2) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which was decided on 8.4.1994. The Minister, acting as appellate authority, considered the question – whether the period of six months is to be counted prior to the date on which defect was detected, i.e. 20.6.1991 or prior to the date on which supplementary bill was raised, i.e. 27.4.1991. The Minister, acting as appellate authority, considered the question – whether the period of six months is to be counted prior to the date on which defect was detected, i.e. 20.6.1991 or prior to the date on which supplementary bill was raised, i.e. 27.4.1991. The appellate authority held that the meter ceased to be correct on 20.1.1991 and therefore the period of six months is to be counted prior to that date and the date of supplementary bill had no relevance and the amount charges was raised to Rs. 05,53,661.26. That order is under challenge before us in this writ petition. 4. Mrs. Chandurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Section 26(6) of Electricity Act requires six month prior to the date the dispute is raised is liable to be calculated for the purpose of computing the amount of energy that is supplied to a consumer. According to the learned counsel, that date in this case is 8.5.1991 when the petitioner made a representation to the Electrical Inspector which was directed to be decided, as aforesaid. The submission is that if the date on which dispute is raised is taken into account the demand confirmed by the Minister is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel then submitted that the date of supplementary bill must be taken the date of six months and hence the units consumed are liable to be ascertained by M.S.E.B. for the period from 21.10.1990 to 27.4.1991. The main reason for this contention seems to be the fact that the petitioner has paid the bills for January, February and March 1991 under protest, i.e. the period after which the meter was admittedly replaced. The defective meter was admittedly replaced and the bills were of little amount, which show a relatively less consumption of electric units. 5. The main reason for this contention seems to be the fact that the petitioner has paid the bills for January, February and March 1991 under protest, i.e. the period after which the meter was admittedly replaced. The defective meter was admittedly replaced and the bills were of little amount, which show a relatively less consumption of electric units. 5. The question whether the period of six months for which estimate of the amount and energy supplied to the consumer is liable to be answered in terms of Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act, which reads as follows- “26(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in subsection (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and where the matter 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 subsection, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days, notice of his intention so to do.” 6. It is necessary to ascertain the purpose for which this provision is enacted. Undoubtedly, it is enacted to enable the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of supply of energy to the consumer during the period the meter is found not to have been correct. That period during which the Electrical Inspector is allowed to make such assessment is the period not exceeding six months. Since the purpose of the proviso is to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer when the meter was defective, the date on which the dispute was referred to the Electrical Inspector or the date on which supplementary bill was raised, is of no relevance. From a plain reading of the proviso, it is clear that the Electrical Inspector is required to ascertain estimate amount of energy supplied to the consumer for the period “as the meter shall not have been correct”. From a plain reading of the proviso, it is clear that the Electrical Inspector is required to ascertain estimate amount of energy supplied to the consumer for the period “as the meter shall not have been correct”. It, therefore, goes without saying that the Electrical Inspector has to first determine the period during which the meter was not correct. This period of six months may be the period prior to the date of detection of the fault or may go beyond that date till the replacement of the meter or may extend to such period after detection till the defect in the meter is rectified. In the instant case, the appellate authority has on facts taken the period to be the period of six months prior to the date of detection of the fault in the meter since the meter was replaced within a month of detection of the fault. We, therefore, see no error of law apparent on the face of the order passed by the appellate authority in taking the period of six months prior to the date of detection of fault. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Single Bench decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai v. Hotel Hill Top International, Mumbai – 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 1009, wherein this Court held thus : “It is, therefore, evident that the exercise of power by the Electrical Inspector under the section 26(6) of the said Act has necessarily to be in relation to the present dispute and the Electrical Inspector has to ascertain in exercise of such power as to whether the meter in question is or is not correct i.e. on the day of inspection of the meter and not as to whether in past it was or was not correct. Undoubtedly, once the Inspector comes to the conclusion that the meter is not correct, he is empowered to calculate amount of the liability of the consumer for the supply made to the consumer during the period of preceding six months from the day on which the meter is to be not correct.” 8. It is not possible for us to agree with the aforesaid view since the period prior to the date of inspection when the meter was found faulty can certainly be taken into account since during that period the meter reading was faulty. It is not possible for us to agree with the aforesaid view since the period prior to the date of inspection when the meter was found faulty can certainly be taken into account since during that period the meter reading was faulty. In the circumstances, on the facts found in this case, we find no error in the order of the appellate authority in confirming the supplementary bill. The order of the appellate authority upholding the contention of M.S.E.B. whereby the estimated amount of energy supplied to the petitioner for a period of six months prior to the date of detection of fault is not liable to be interfered. Accordingly, Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.