Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order No.1188/EI/C/Disputes/2007-1 dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Electrical Inspector, Chennai Division in exercise of quasi judicial power under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The impugned order reads as under: “GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE From To The Electrical Inspector, Thiru Central Hotels(P) Ltd., Chennai Division, 1st Floor, Sathak Centre Annexe, Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, 141/11, Nungambakkam High Road, Guindy, Chennai-32 Chennai-34 Lr.No.1188/EI/C/Disputes/2007-1, dt. 30.03.2007 Sir, Sub: Electricity – Thiru Central Hotels (P) Ltd., 1st Floor, Sathak Centre Annexe – HTSC No.2302 – Revision of billing – Regarding. Ref: 1) High Court, Madras Order dt.16.3.04 in W.P.No.2976 of 2003. -O- With reference to above cited, the following conclusions are arrived. The HT supply for Thiru. Central Hotels, Chennai-3 was effected on 27.2.95 with sanctioned demand of 250KVA power check calculation by disc rotation method was done incorrectly. After one year when power check was carried out by T.N.E.B. Officials, the meter was said to have recorded only 2/3 consumption due to defective wiring connection done outside metering mechanism i.e. Biecco Lawrie Panel. This was said to have been informed to consumer and same was said to have been rectified on 22.3.96. From the records of current consumption readings from 4/95 to 3/96, the consumption of electricity was slowly raised for 1st 12 months. After 3/96 and after rectification of wiring, the current consumption was found to be increased to 1/3rd consumption for the next 2 months and there onwards, it is steadily varying between 85000 to 95000 units. Though, the dispute is not in registering mechanism of the meter, as per discussion with both TNEB and consumers representative the meter was removed from consumer premises and meter was also tested for correctness in Government Electrical Standards Lab for both correct wrong connection (given for period 27.2.95 to 22.3.96 i.e. Only 2 current coils energised) From the test results, it is ascertained that i) % error is within the limits when the meter is connected in correct connection. ii) % error is beyond the limits say 40% slow due to wrong defective connection. From the records of office of the Electrical Inspector/Chennai Division, it is ascertained that there is no permitted additional load from the period 27.2.95 to 22.3.96. ii) % error is beyond the limits say 40% slow due to wrong defective connection. From the records of office of the Electrical Inspector/Chennai Division, it is ascertained that there is no permitted additional load from the period 27.2.95 to 22.3.96. The consumer namely, Central Hotels Pvt. Ltd. has paid necessary consumption charges from 4/96 to 13.09.05 (i.e. after rectification). They have not objected this and are objecting from March ’95 to 25.3.96 (about 13 months). Accepting “one part of whole” and rejecting the remaining “part of whole is unreasonable”. When the consumer namely Central Hotels (P) Ltd., has agreed with “meter readings” after rectification as “correct” they should accept that “meter readings” before rectification of wiring external to “meter” as incorrect. As such, the revision of the bill for the period from “March ’95 to 29 days of March ’96 as per terms and conditions of supply of T.N.E.B. appears to be reasonable. ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR/CHENNAI”3. It is pleaded case of petitioner, that it is user of HT supply for a maximum demand of 250 KVA from the respondents 1 and 2. The connections was allowed after fulfilling and complying with the various requirements to install new HV and MV installations in the building for running the hotel during 1995. 4. The petitioner entered into agreement dated 21.02.1995 for HT service and under the agreement, the meter room was put up and all the facilities were made available through its electrical engineers and contractors M/s. Sharavathy Electricals, P12, Anna Nagar, Chennai in consultation with the Consultant Electrical Engineers M/s. Kashyap Consultants, Anna Nagar, Chennai. 5. The panel wiring was fitted by respondent nos.1 & 2 with HT Trivector Meter with Blecco Lawrie Panel in a separate cubicle in a separate room using their own materials, equipments and men. They tested the installations and fittings and after satisfying the correctness of the wiring, panel and the meter were sealed and locked. The room was thereafter under custody of respondent nos.1 & 2. 6. The case of petitioner is that, it had no access to the room. While the petitioner was regularly paying the bill, a letter was received on 16.05.1996 from the Superintending Engineer, MEDC/Central, Anna Main Road, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, pointing out that due to defective wiring, there was a short circuit, which resulted in the meter recording about 2/3rd of the actual consumption. While the petitioner was regularly paying the bill, a letter was received on 16.05.1996 from the Superintending Engineer, MEDC/Central, Anna Main Road, K.K.Nagar, Chennai, pointing out that due to defective wiring, there was a short circuit, which resulted in the meter recording about 2/3rd of the actual consumption. This fact was noticed on inspection by the Engineers of the respondent nos.1 & 2. 7. The respondents, therefore, raised a demand for additional bill for the period from 27.02.1995 to 27.03.1996 and demanded Rs.10,57,338/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Eight only). 8. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the unilateral demand of bill, filed W.P.no.6404 of 1996, in which the recovery was stayed. The writ petition was finally allowed and the demand was quashed, by holding, that the dispute was required to be adjudicated by the Chief Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act. 9. This Court also held, that the dispute could be raised for a maximum period of six months. 10. The respondent Board being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge preferred W.A.No.2976 of 2003. The order of the Hon’ble Single Judge was confirmed, with liberty to Board to approach the Chief Electrical Inspector for adjudication of dispute under Section 26(6) of the Act. 11. It was in exercise of statutory powers, that the impugned order has been passed upholding the demand of the Board. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground, that the order is contrary to the direction issued by this Court, and against the provisions of the Statute. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained, as the jurisdiction of the Chief Electrical Inspector under the statute as well as under the order of this Court was only to revise the bill for a period of six months and not beyond that, whereas the Chief Electrical Inspector has upheld the revision of bill for 13 months. 13. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that in exercise of statutory powers vested with the Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, terms and conditions of supply have been framed, having statutory force of law. 13. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that in exercise of statutory powers vested with the Board under Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, terms and conditions of supply have been framed, having statutory force of law. In terms of Clause 19.12, any clerical errors or mistakes in the bill levied, demanded or charged by the Board, can be raised for a period of three years. The Clause 19.16 of the Terms & Conditions of Supply, reads as under: “19.16 – Revision of bills for Low Tension Service connections arising out of any reason attributable to the Board like defective meter, defective metering arrangement, incorrect application of tariff, wrong billing etc., will be made for the duration of the period for which such revision is called for, subject to a maximum back period of three years from the date of billing. Revision of bills arising out of any reason attributable to the consumer will be made for the duration for which such revision is called for.” 14. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. The terms and conditions framed by the Board in exercise of power under Section 29 cannot override the statutory provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act. 15. Section 26(6) of the Act imposes a bar against revision of bill beyond six months. The regulations cannot override statute, as it is well settled law, that the regulations have to give way to the statute. Even otherwise the case is not covered under the terms and conditions of Supply, but was a dispute referred under Section 26(6) of the Act by this Court. The respondent no.3, being creation of statute, was bound by the statute and could not act beyond it. The respondent no.3 has no jurisdiction to revise the bill beyond the period of 6 months. 16. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned part of order permitting revision of bill for 13 months is quashed, and the right of respondent Board to revise the bill for a period of six months of the date of notice of the defect, is upheld. 17. 16. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned part of order permitting revision of bill for 13 months is quashed, and the right of respondent Board to revise the bill for a period of six months of the date of notice of the defect, is upheld. 17. The respondents are accordingly directed to revise the demand by raising fresh bill, by claiming additional charges for six months prior to date of defect and refund the excess amount so received under the impugned order to the petitioner. 18. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.