ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who happened to be the consumer of Electricity for the Industrial purpose, has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with following prayers: “(a) Quashing and setting aside the bill dtd. 9.6.2001 in as much as it pertains to appears of Rs.1,17,663.05ps.; (b) PENDING THE ADMISSION, HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL OF THIS PETITION, YOUR LORDSHIPS BE PLEASED to restrain the respondent board from recovering the amount of Rs.1,17,663.05ps from the bill dtd. 9.6.2001 of a total of Rs.1,48,758.00; (c) To grant any other appropriate and just relief/s; and also to grant the cost of this petition”. Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the bill dated 9.6.2001 in so far as it contains the demand for arrears to the tune of Rs.1,17,663.05ps. 3. Facts in brief leading to filing this petition, as could be culled out from the memo of petition deserve to be set out as under: 4. The petitioner is a Mill Company manufacturing Textile for which the electricity connection was obtained. On 13.7.1999 there was a surprise checking by the employees of the respondent Board. The things were found to be in order, however, it was noted that the glass of metal meter box was not transparent and it has become translucent and on acu-test, meter was found to be running slow by 10.66%. Accordingly, checking sheet was prepared, which was made available by the counsel for respondent for perusal of the Court. The checking had happened on 13.7.1999. The petitioner’s representative named in the checking sheet was made to sign. However, on the checking sheet, a note is appended which read that the report as aforesaid was not acceptable and appropriate steps will be taken. It was further averred in the memo of petition that though the staff of the respondent Company agreed that meter was running slow by 10.66%, immediate steps, which were required to be taken, were not taken by them. The meter was not checked nor was it sent for inspection to another Electrical Inspector. On 13.6.2001, i.e. around after a period of 1 year, the petitioner was sent a bill for June/July, 1999 for a sum of Rs.1,19,794.47ps, which included Rs.41,367.57ps as old dues. The meter was not checked nor was it sent for inspection to another Electrical Inspector. On 13.6.2001, i.e. around after a period of 1 year, the petitioner was sent a bill for June/July, 1999 for a sum of Rs.1,19,794.47ps, which included Rs.41,367.57ps as old dues. The petitioner did not realize that it was also included the demand of old dues, paid up the same. The petitioner also received another bill dated 9.6.2001 for the sum of Rs.1,48,758/- which included the amount of Rs.1,17,663.05ps towards old dues for so called slow moving of the meter. The said is produced at Annexure – C. The petitioner’s request for changing the meter were not hided to till June, 2001 to be more precise on 16.6.2001, the meter was ultimately changed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the supplementary bill could not have been raised without their being a finding and inspection of a meter by the Electrical Inspector, who happened to be an independent authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD ETC. VS. U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANOTHER, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2793 , contended that the court observation in light of the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, there was no scope of issuance of any supplementary bill without any reference to the Electrical Inspector. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner thereafter contended that the inaction on the part of the authorities could not be permitted to be continuance and they be permitted to issue bill which otherwise is also not admissible as per the provisions of Section 26 of the then existing Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter invited this Court’s attention to page 10 to 12 and indicated that the repeated request for doing the needful were made, which would also absolve the petitioner from his liability to do the needful, as sought to be canvassed or raised by counsel for the respondent. 9. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent Electricity Board invited this Court’s attention to the checking sheet, which is dated 13.7.1999, copy whereof was supplied during the course of submission, as recorded hereinabove, and submitted that at item no. 9. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent Electricity Board invited this Court’s attention to the checking sheet, which is dated 13.7.1999, copy whereof was supplied during the course of submission, as recorded hereinabove, and submitted that at item no. 8, there is a specific finding that slow running of the meter and acu-test is permissible under law. When the meter was examined and checked in presence of representative of petitioner and who had appended his signature to the report, a duty is also cast upon the petitioner to take recourse of remedy available under Section 26(6) of the Act and he cannot sit silent without any remedy and resist the bill, as nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the Electrical Inspector in case, if he was aggrieved on account of bill raised. 10. Learned advocate for the respondent relied upon the decision in case of QUALITY STEELS AND FORGING LTD & ANR VS. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR, reported in 1988 (1) GLR 165 , contended that the duty is essentially cast upon the petitioner for raising dispute qua slowness of meter. Non-raising of dispute on the part of the petitioner, would not absolve him from charging the supplementary bill. 11. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent heavily relied upon the signature of the representative on the checking sheet and indicated that in the checking report, which is produced on the upper portion, it is agreed on the part of employee that supplementary bill will be accepted and signed. However, note appended thereunder indicates otherwise but nonetheless, that note also indicates that petitioner was aware of the slowness of the meter and was also aware of the possibility of he being saddle with liability to payment on supplementary bill, which was to be raised as checking sheet was eloquently clear. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the copy of the checking sheet had never been served to the petitioner and till date not even supplied to counsel for the petitioner. 13. The Court has heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the checking sheet, bill and other documents. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the copy of the checking sheet had never been served to the petitioner and till date not even supplied to counsel for the petitioner. 13. The Court has heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the checking sheet, bill and other documents. There cannot be any dispute qua proposition of law that Section 26(6) as observed by Apex Court in case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra), there cannot be any power in the authority of the respondent electricity company to issue supplementary bill in a given situation in absence of any fraud or theft or allegation of fraud or theft, without making reference to the Electrical Inspector. The decision cited at bar in case of Quality Steels and Forgings Ltd (supra), will be having no applicability to the case on hand, as the facts in said case are not applicable and invocation of Section 26(6) and point raised here is the slowness of meter and resultant supplementary bill would not be falling under the purview of employee of the electricity company and therefore, in this view of the matter, the signature appended and report, which contained some assurance or acknowledgment of liability, as sought to be made out, is also would be of no avail to the respondent. 14. The Court is satisfied qua the attempt of the petitioner to inform the authority for doing needful in respect of the meter in question. The documents at page 10 to 12 would clearly indicate and go to show that there was an attempt on the part of petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in respect of the allegation of slowness of the meter. As counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner did not accept the slowness contention recorded in the meter and checking sheet in its entirety, if read, would indicate that the counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that same cannot be said to be an unequivocal acceptance of liability as sought to be made out on the part of electricity board. The Court is satisfied that there is clear violation of Section 26(6) and therefore, was no authority in the Company to raise supplementary bill, which persuade this Court to quash the same and accordingly, it is hereby quashed. 15. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs.