JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. With consent of the parties, writ petition is heard finally. 2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the award passed by the Electricity Ombudsman on 2.6.2014. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 22.5.2012, Assistant Engineer,(MST), Kishangarh inspected the premises of the respondent-company and took MRI of the meter when CT open tamper was observed. Based on the MRI report, assessment of un-billed units were prepared. The Assistant Engineer again visited the site on 14.5.2013 for routine testing and took MRI of the meter again and observed that on downloading the dates on computer 74 nos. of CT open tampers were occurred out of which 1 no. of tamper had already been charged and assessment of the balance un-billed units were prepared. The tamper occurred due to carbon in the meter but it was having facility of recording consumption of electricity internally. The consumption of electricity could be detected through MRI and, otherwise, after removing the carbon, same meter was kept on the premises of the consumer. 4. The Electricity Ombudsman considered it to be a case of defective meter as the meter was creating troubles and causing R-phase tampers time and again thus meter cannot be said to be correct. It was also observed that if the meter was correct then there was no necessity of any assessment. It was, accordingly, held to be a case of defective meter resulted in frequent troubles in R-phase affecting correctness of the meter reading. The definition of "Metering System" has also been referred. The Ombudsman failed to consider that defective meter cannot give consumption even internally and can be taken out by applying MRI. The demand was made accordingly. 5. The respondent No.1-company approached the Settlement Committee, where, out of total period of 357 days of the consumption, relaxation of 30 days was given thus, effectively, electricity consumption based on internal reading of the meter was allowed excluding 30 days. The respondent company approached the Electricity Ombudsman. The electricity bill was allowed to be changed for a period of six months after treating it to be a case of defective meter thus demand disallowed beyond six months from the date, defect was traced out. 6. The respondent company approached the Electricity Ombudsman. The electricity bill was allowed to be changed for a period of six months after treating it to be a case of defective meter thus demand disallowed beyond six months from the date, defect was traced out. 6. It was in ignorance of the fact that after installation of electronic meter, consumption is recorded at two places; one is recorded on the face of the meter and other is recorded internally. In the instant case, consumption was not correctly reflected on the face of the meter due to carbon and, accordingly, carbon was removed and same meter was kept. 7. If correct reading was not reflected on the face due to carbon but the electricity consumption was recorded internally, it cannot be said to be a case of defective meter. It can be only when internally and externally, correct consumption of electricity is not recorded due to defect in the meter. In the instant case, same meter is being used by the consumer after removing carbon which cannot be in a case of defective meter but the aforesaid aspect has also been ignored by the Ombudsman in its award dated 2.6.2014. The petition of the respondent company was allowed by treating it to be a case of defective meter though actual consumption is allowed for a period of previous six months based on the consumption recorded internally. If it was a case of defective meter, then consumption recorded therein could not have been allowed to be charged even for a period of six months. 8. Learned counsel for respondent has made reference of the judgment of this court in the case of "Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. The Electricity Ombudsman, Rajasthan, Jaipur & anr", SB Civil Writ Petition No.10223/2015, decided on 22.9.2015 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. Therein also, award of the Ombudsman was challenged, however, therein, the issue was different. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has made further reference on the definition of "meter" and "correct meter" as specified in the Notification dated 17.3.2006 by the Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi. They are Regulations for installation and operation of meters. Therein also, award of the Ombudsman was challenged, however, therein, the issue was different. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner has made further reference on the definition of "meter" and "correct meter" as specified in the Notification dated 17.3.2006 by the Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi. They are Regulations for installation and operation of meters. The definition of "meter" and "correct meter" are reproduced here as under - "(p)'Meter' means a device suitable for measuring, indicating and recording consumption of electricity or any other quantity related with electrical system and shall include, wherever applicable, other equipment such as Current Transformer (CT),Voltage Transformer (VT) or Capacitor Voltage Transformer (CVT) necessary for such purpose; (k) 'Correct Meter' means a meter, which shall at least have, features, Accuracy Class and specifications as per the Standards on Installation and Operation of Meters given in Schedule of these Regulations;" 10. The definition of 'defective meter' has not been provided thus definition of 'correct meter' has been taken and would apply to this case because with installation of electronic meter, consumption of electricity is recorded at two places. Ignoring the aforesaid, case has been treated to be a case of defective meter. The meter becomes defective when consumption is not correctly recorded internally and on the face. The carbon in the meter does not make it to be defective. The non-petitioner company has not disputed actual consumption of electricity recorded internally in the meter and could be reflected by the MRI. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner company has even made a reference to section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which permits recovery for a period of two years. Accordingly, petitioner company was within its rights to make recovery of bill for electricity consumption based on actual reading recorded in the meter internally. 12. In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 2.6.2014 passed by the Ombudsman is set aside and, as a consequence thereof, petitioner would be entitled to recovery of the amount of electricity bills for the period in dispute leaving the period of 30 days. 13. It is stated that non-petitioner company has already satisfied the bill for a period of six months thus aforesaid would be taken in account. Petition allowed.