ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the supplementary bill raised by the respondent/Board vide impugned memo dated 11/06/1992 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has also assailed the correctness and validity of notice of disconnection dated 24/06/1993 (Annexure P/2). Quintessential facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition are that the petitioner is an industrial consumer who was provided electricity connection by the respondent/Board. During the period of consumption of electricity for industrial use by the petitioner, an inspection was carried out by the authorities of the Board on 17/08/1991 and the officers of the Board found the current transformer/potential transformer, defective and not giving correct recording of consumption. As the pleadings and documents placed on record goes to show, the respondent/Board intimated this fact to the petitioner and the petitioner vide his communication dated 30/01/1992 (Annexure P/7) raised protest. Though initially certain communications were made by the Board expressing its inability to install new CT/PT unit, communication dated 28/02/1992 (Annexure P/10) shows that a new CT/PT unit had become available with the Board and the same was replaced on 19/02/1992. 2. The officers of the Board however, proceeded to raise a supplementary bill vide impugned communication (Annexure P/1) dated 11/06/1992 wherein, it was stated that after replacement of defective CT/PT unit, energy consumption has been recorded correctly but as in respect of the previous period, incorrect recording was taking place in the defective meter, a supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 7,00,849/- in respect of the period from January, 1990 to February, 1992 has been raised. The petitioner, however, disputed and vide his communication dated 22/06/1992 (Annexure P/13) disputed supplementary electricity bill and requested the authorities to withdraw the same with a further request to draw a supplementary bill in a just and proper manner. The request of the petitioner was not accepted with the result that vide impugned notice dated 24/06/1993, a notice of, non-payment of charges and disconnection of electricity supply was issued. This action of the respondent has given rise to the present petition. 3. The request of the petitioner was not accepted with the result that vide impugned notice dated 24/06/1993, a notice of, non-payment of charges and disconnection of electricity supply was issued. This action of the respondent has given rise to the present petition. 3. Assailing the correctness and validity of the respondents' action raising supplementary bill, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in raising supplementary bill and thereafter, threatening disconnection on non-payment of the said supplementary bill is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short the Act of 1910). It is argued that the respondent proceeded to raise supplementary bill without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. According to him, once a meter is found defective and a dispute is raised, it is obligatory on the part of the Electrical Inspector to refer the matter for adjudication of Electrical Inspector before raising any supplementary bill. Without such course of action having been adopted, the action of the respondents is illegal and unauthorized. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on several authorities Hamidullah Khan, Jabalpur vs. Chairman. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Rampur, Jabalpur and Others, AIR 1983 Madhya Pradesh 1, Smt. Basantibai vs. M.P. Electricity Board Indore and Others, AIR 1985 MP 70 , H.D. Shourie vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another, AIR 1987 Delhi 219, M/s. Regal Theatre and Others vs. MPEB, Rampur and Others, AIR 1987 Madhya Pradesh 276, M/s. Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd. Mysore vs. Chairman, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and Another, AIR 1991 Karnataka 345, MPEB and Others vs. Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1988 SC 71 , U.P.S.E.B. vs. Atma Steels and Others, (1998) 2 SCC 597 : AIR 1998 SC 846 , Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking vs. Laffans (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Another, AIR 2005 SC 2486 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that there existed an alternative remedy with the petitioner to prefer a Departmental Appeal before the Chief Engineer as provided in Clause 14 of the agreement (Annexure P/4). The petitioner, without taking recourse to this remedy, has filed this writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. The petitioner, without taking recourse to this remedy, has filed this writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. On merits, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910 are not applicable because the provisions lay down the procedure to be followed in case where a meter is found defective. In his submission, current transformer/ potential transformer is merely an auxiliary equipment attached to a meter and cannot be said to be a meter itself for the purposes of Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910. The next contention of learned counsel for respondents is that the petitioner has not substantially disputed that the meter was defective. Once meter is found defective, the respondents become entitled to raise supplementary bill in accordance with the terms and conditions of the supply, read with agreement between the parties. He submits that the authorities, after due scrutiny of the previous consumption, arrived at average consumption of the petitioner's industrial unit and therefore, in respect of the period during which the meter remained defective i.e. from January, 1990 to February, 1992 i.e. 6 months before and after the period of there being in existence defective meter, bills have been raised. He also submits that if the petitioner was not satisfied with the supplementary bill, either he should have gone in appeal as provided in Clause 3 of the agreement or it was for him to move appropriate application raising dispute before the Electrical Inspector instead of challenging the correctness and validity of the supplementary bill and notice of disconnection by this writ petition. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sub-Divisional Officer (P). UHBVNL vs. Dharam Pal, AIR 2007 SC 1214 and judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of M/s. Hotel Utsav, through the Managing Partner vs. M.P. Electricity Board, through its Chairman and Others, M.P. No. 2353 of 1992. 5. The facts which are not disputed by the parties before this Court and as are adumbrated by way of affidavit is that an inspection was carried out in the premises on 17/08/91 and the inspection report recorded defective CT/PT unit. 5. The facts which are not disputed by the parties before this Court and as are adumbrated by way of affidavit is that an inspection was carried out in the premises on 17/08/91 and the inspection report recorded defective CT/PT unit. Though the parties are on" logger head with regard to the presence of the petitioner/representative at the time of inspection, the fact that inspection was carried out is not disputed. The communication between the parties, which has been placed on record also shows that the respondent/Board intimated this fact to the petitioner and the petitioner vide communication dated 30/01/1992 raised a dispute. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, the respondent authorities proceeded to replace the defective meter and a new CT/PT meter was installed on 19/02/1992 as is evident from the communication dated 28/02/92 (Annexure P/10). 6. From the aforesaid factual position, it emerges that the CT/PT unit installed in the premises of the petitioner was found to be defective and that CT/PT unit was there till it was replaced on 19/02/1992. 7. Clause 14 of the agreement of supply of electricity to the petitioner by the respondent does contain a kind of in-house redressal mechanism in the event of any dispute with regard to the bill raised by the respondents. The said clause, under the agreement, however, does not nullify the statutory provisions contained in Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910 and the procedure statutorily prescribed under the law laying down the mechanism of adjudication of dispute between the parties in case of defective meter. The clause therefore, cannot be read to mean that in such a case, the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910 will have no application and the petitioner is necessarily required to first raise a dispute by filing an appeal before the authority as mentioned in Clause 14 of the agreement. It is trite law that the terms of agreement which are contrary to the provisions of law are inapplicable and cannot be enforced in the manner inconsistent with the provisions of law nor can take away statutory right of the parties. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Others vs. Ludhiana Steels Private Ltd. AIR 1993 SC 1355 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and Others vs. Ludhiana Steels Private Ltd. AIR 1993 SC 1355 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. I need not go much into the aspect of terms of agreement when the legal position is settled. The objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition on the basis of such provision of appeal incorporated in the agreement, even assuming it to be applicable and available in addition to statutory mechanism provided under the law, must pale into insignificance at this distance of time when this Court is going to decide the matter after two decades. Exercising my discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am not inclined to throw the petition on this ground, at this stage. 8. Statutory mechanism for adjudication of dispute between a consumer and licensee in case where a meter is found defective, has been provided in Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910. The provision reads thus:- "26(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter 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; 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 sub-section, he shall give to the other party not less than seven days' notice of his intention so to do." 9. At this stage, it is necessary to answer the objection with regard to the applicability of this provision on the submission that CT/PT Unit is not a part and parcel of the meter nor can it be said to be meter itself. At this stage, it is necessary to answer the objection with regard to the applicability of this provision on the submission that CT/PT Unit is not a part and parcel of the meter nor can it be said to be meter itself. This aspect is also not res integra any more in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P.S.E.B., AIR 1998 SC 846 (supra) wherein, the Supreme Court, after examining the statutory provisions under the Act of 1910 and the Electro Mechanical function which a CT/PT unit performs, has held that the potential transformer has to be recorded as meter for the purposes of Section 26 of the Act of 1910. In para 8 of its judgment, the Supreme Court recorded thus:- "8. It is clear that the only function of the PT in a given case like the present where the power is being supplied to the respondent at 11,000 Volts, is to reduce it to 110 Volts so as to enable the meter to record the amount of power which is consumed by the industry. It is common ground that the existing meter could not record the power consumed unless there was stepping down of the voltage from 11,000 to 110. This stepping down was done by the PT. It is also not in dispute that after the recording of the consumption by the meter the power, which was reduced from 11,000 to 110 Volts, is not used by the respondent. This clearly shows that the only function of the PT was to enable the ascertaining or regulating of the amount of energy supplied to the respondent. This instrument namely the PT has, therefore, to be regarded as a meter in view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 26 and the second proviso, in particular, and therefore, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the Electrical Inspector had the jurisdiction to exercise his powers under Section 26(7) of the Act. The order of the appellate authority, therefore, was rightly set aside." Therefore, in view of the above legal position, the objection with regard to the applicability of Section 26 of the Act of 1910 on the ground that CT/PT is not a part of meter, has to be rejected. 10. The order of the appellate authority, therefore, was rightly set aside." Therefore, in view of the above legal position, the objection with regard to the applicability of Section 26 of the Act of 1910 on the ground that CT/PT is not a part of meter, has to be rejected. 10. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the Electricity Board was justified in raising supplementary electricity bill without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector. A plain reading of the provisions contained in Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910 makes it crystal clear that in case, where there arises a difference or dispute as to whether any meter is or is not correct, the difference or dispute is required to be decided by the Electrical Inspector on a claim made to it by either of the parties of dispute. The Electrical Inspector, in such a case, has to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in supply, during such time, not exceeding six months. The provision also impliedly incorporate obligation on the part of the Electrical Inspector to afford opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 11. The aforesaid provision came up for consideration in number of decisions. To name a few are Hamidullah Khan, AIR 1983 MP 1 (supra), Smt. Basantibai, AIR 1985 MP 70 (supra), H.D. Shourie, AIR 1987 Del 219 (supra), M/s. Regal Theatre and Others, AIR 1987 MP 276 (supra), M/s. Sri Krishnarajendra Mills Ltd. Mysore, AIR 1991 Kar 345 (supra). The Supreme Court, however, has set at rest the controversy while upholding the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Smt. Basanti Bai (supra). It has been held that in cases where a dispute is whether the electric meter is correct one or is faulty, not recording the actual electricity consumption, the dispute squarely falls under the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910 and in that case, the dispute has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector. The Supreme Court in no uncertain words, has declared that the Electricity Board is not competent to disconnect supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The view taken by the High Court of M.P. in the case of Basanti Bai has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in no uncertain words, has declared that the Electricity Board is not competent to disconnect supply of electricity for non-payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it. The view taken by the High Court of M.P. in the case of Basanti Bai has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and the decision of the High Court of M.P. leads to an inescapable conclusion that once there is a dispute with regard to the function of the electric meter, it is for the Electricity Board to refer the dispute to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication by following the mechanism provided under the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent in Sub-Divisional Officer (P), UHBVNL, AIR 2007 SC 1214 (supra) is misplaced in law. That was a case where on facts, it was found that there was a case of tampering with the meter. There can be no dispute and in fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Basantibai (supra) as also in the case of Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking, AIR 2005 SC 2486 (supra) has drawn distinction between a case of defective meter on one hand and fraud or tampering with the meter on the other. However, present is not a case where respondents have come out with a case that the petitioner is guilty of tampering with the meter or the meter was tampered or the petitioner was guilty of any fraud. Therefore, the said decision is of no help to the respondents. The decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of M.P. in the case of M/s. Hotel Utsav (supra) only fortifies the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that proper course of action should have been to refer the matter for adjudication to the Electrical Inspector as provided under Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910. 12. As an upshot of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the action of the respondents in proceeding to raise supplementary bill against the petitioner and threatening disconnection on account of non-payment of such bill is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910. 12. As an upshot of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the action of the respondents in proceeding to raise supplementary bill against the petitioner and threatening disconnection on account of non-payment of such bill is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910. Therefore, the impugned demand letter (Annexure P/1) and notice of disconnection (Annexure P/2) are declared illegal and inoperative in law and therefore, set aside. 13. It will be open for the respondents to take recourse to the mechanism provided under Section 26(6) of the Act of 1910 and thereafter, on the basis of such order that may be passed by the Electrical Inspector, the respondents would be at liberty to raise supplementary bill, if any, under the law. The petition is accordingly allowed. No orders as to cost. Petition allowed.