JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. By present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the communication dated 22.02.2007 at Annexure - C whereby the petitioner was informed by respondent No. 1 - Electrical Inspector that the meter of the petitioner was checked in meter testing laboratory and during the inspection, it was found that the meter was recording correct electrical consumption and at the time of meter testing, and, thereafter also, within 30 days since the petitioner had not raised any dispute with regard to the meter, the Executive Engineer of respondent No. 2 - Electricity Company disposed of the meter and, therefore, the meter dispute raised by the petitioner could not be registered. 2. It appears that the above communication from respondent No. 1 to the petitioner was in connection with the application dated 28.06.2004 at Annexure - A made by the petitioner under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ("the Act") to inspect his meter on the ground that there was defect in his meter. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner made complaint that the meter installed at his premises was running very fast and there was some defect in the meter and, therefore, the meter was changed upon the request of the petitioner. The petitioner, then made an application on 28.06.2004 under Section 26(6) of the Act to the respondent No. 1 get the meter inspected, however, such request was turned down for the reasons mentioned in the impugned communication and the petitioner was issued supplementary bill for Rs. 74,460.95/- paise which was not permissible on account of the defect in the meter and without inspecting the meter by respondent No. 1. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Apurva K. Jani appearing for learned advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner had made the complaint about defect in the meter and based on which, the meter was removed and, thereafter, when a specific request was made to inspect the meter as per Section 26(6) of the Act, neither respondent No. 1 was justified in not registering the dispute in connection with the meter under Section 26(6) of the Act nor respondent No. 2 was justified in issuing supplementary bill. He submitted that the respondent No. 2 could not have issued any bill until respondent No. 1 decided the dispute concerning the meter under Section 26(6) of the Act. Mr. Jani submitted that the dispute with regard to meter was not registered, pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, by respondent No. 1 only on the ground that the application was not made within 30 days. He submitted that nowhere such period of 30 days is provided and, therefore, respondent No. 1 was not justified in not entertaining the application of the petitioner. He submitted that even respondent No. 2, committed serious illegality in destroying or disposing of the meter before the dispute concerning the meter was decided by respondent No. 1. He submitted that since both the authorities have failed to discharge their statutory duties under the Act, the supplementary bill is required to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking Vs. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd. and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 327 . 5. Learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya for the respondents submitted that at no point of time, the petitioner raised any dispute with respondent No. 2 for sending the meter to respondent No. 1 under Section 26(6) of the Act. She submitted that by the time, the petitioner wanted to register the dispute in connection with the meter under Section 26(6) of the Act, the meter was already destroyed as per the practice. She submitted that since the petitioner failed to raise any dispute with respondent No. 1 as provided under Section 26(6) of the Act, there was no illegality committed by respondent No. 2 in issuing the bill for actual consumption of the electricity to the petitioner. 6. The Court having heard learned advocates for both the sides, finds that the petitioner before making application dated 28.06.2004 to respondent No. 1 had not raised any dispute in connection with the meter with respondent No. 2. 6. The Court having heard learned advocates for both the sides, finds that the petitioner before making application dated 28.06.2004 to respondent No. 1 had not raised any dispute in connection with the meter with respondent No. 2. As recorded in the impugned communication, the meter of the petitioner was taken for testing on 01.04.2004 in the laboratory and it was found to have correctly recorded the electricity consumption and at the time of testing of the meter, the petitioner did not raise any dispute and, thereafter also, within 30 days, the petitioner did not raise any dispute concerning his meter. It is stated in the said communication that since no dispute was raised by the petitioner, the meter was disposed of. 7. Section 26(6) of the Act reads as under: "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." 8. Thus, as per the above provisions, where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter is correct or not, the matter shall be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon the application of either party. However, before making any application to the Electrical Inspector by either party for deciding the matter in dispute, either party shall be required to give notice to other party of not less than seven days of his intention to make application to the Electrical Inspector. However, before making any application to the Electrical Inspector by either party for deciding the matter in dispute, either party shall be required to give notice to other party of not less than seven days of his intention to make application to the Electrical Inspector. Thus, giving of seven days' notice for registering any dispute or difference by the Electrical Inspector is pre-requisite and in absence of such notice it could not be said that the dispute as to whether any meter is correct or not has arisen for making application to the Electrical Inspector in connection with the meter. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had given any such notice as required under Section 26(6) of the Act to respondent No. 2. It appears from the endorsement below the application dated 28.06.2004 at Annexure - A made to respondent No. 1 under Section 26(6) of the Act that the copy of the said application was forwarded to the Executive Engineer of respondent No. 2. However, such would not satisfy the requirement of giving seven days' notice as provided under Section 26(6) of the Act. Therefore, not only the petitioner raised no dispute at the time when his meter was being tested in the laboratory as observed in the impugned communication, but he also did not issue any notice for referring the dispute to the Electrical Inspector. In such circumstances, there was no question of deciding the dispute concerning the meter of the petitioner by the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act. 9. In the case of Laffans (India) (P) Ltd. (supra), relied on by Mr. Jani the consumer was issued supplementary bill - revised bill on the ground that it was undercharged due to the meter was not accurately recording the readings. The consumer challenged the notice of demand and the action of disconnection of supply by filing writ petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge held that since the consumer did not raise any dispute, the Electricity Company was entitled to replace the meter if the same was defective and to raise the demand on the basis of average consumption in the past period. The learned single Judge held that since the consumer did not raise any dispute, the Electricity Company was entitled to replace the meter if the same was defective and to raise the demand on the basis of average consumption in the past period. The Division Bench reversed the view of the learned single Judge and held that if the Electricity Company disputed the correctness of the meter, it was to be referred to the officer as provided in Section 26(6) of the Act and it was for the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer. The Electricity Company having not referred any such dispute to the Electrical Inspector and consequently no estimate of the energy supplied by it to the consumer having been made, it was not open to the appellant to raise the bill on the basis of average of past one year's consumption. The question considered was whether the provisions of Sub-Section (6) of Section 26 of the Act was applicable to the facts and circumstances of the said case. While answering such question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph Nos. 9 to 13 as under: 9. What is contemplated by Section 26(6) is a running meter, but which on account of some technical defect registers the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply beyond the prescribed limits of error. It contemplates a meter which is either running slow or fast with the result that it does not register the correct amount of energy supplied. There is an additional reason for coming to such a conclusion. Section 26(6) confers power upon the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of 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. Where the meter is running slow or fast, it will be possible for the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer by determining the extent or percentage of error in recording the supply, whether plus or minus. However, where the meter is burnt or is completely non-functional, such an exercise is not at all possible. Where the meter is running slow or fast, it will be possible for the Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer by determining the extent or percentage of error in recording the supply, whether plus or minus. However, where the meter is burnt or is completely non-functional, such an exercise is not at all possible. Therefore, Section 26(6) can have no application in a case where a meter has become completely non-functional on account of any reason whatsoever. 10. In Belwal Spinning Mills's case, this Court has held inter alia:- (1) Any difference or dispute arising between the licensee and the consumer, as to whether any meter has recorded or is recording correct reading or not, can be raised by either party and referred, upon the application of either party, for decision by an Electrical Inspector. (2) If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter has ceased to be 'correct', he has to determine the quantum of electricity consumed for the statutory period of six months, referred to in sub-section (6). The determination made by the Electrical Inspector on twin questions (i) whether meter was correct or not, and (ii) if the meter was not correct then the estimate of supply of electricity to the consumer for the statutory period of six months, is binding on the licensee and the consumer (subject only to judicial review by a competent Court). (3) For any other period anterior to the statutory period, the legislature has in no uncertain terms indicated in the latter part of sub-section (6) that reading registered in the disputed meter will not only be presumed to be correct but such reading shall be conclusive proof of the quantity of electricity consumed or the amount of electricity supplied to the consumer. For any period other than the statutory period of six months, referred to in sub-section (6), the legislature has intended by the amendment of sub-section (6) of Section 26 (as made by Act 32 of 1959) to put an end to such contest between the licensee and the consumer and has set at rest any dispute relating to any period anterior to the statutory period on estimation by providing that in a case of dispute as to functioning of meter, the reading in the meter for the period beyond the period of statutory estimation, will be final. (4) Any unilateral decision of either of the parties about the correct status of the meter is not to be accepted by the other party if the other party raises objection as to the status of the meter. (5) The estimate to be prepared by the Electrical Inspector, on the dispute being referred to him, may go only up to six months prior to the date of raising the dispute and reference but such estimate will only cover that period prior to raising the dispute during which, according to the Electrical Inspector, the meter had ceased to be correct. (6) The estimate of supply of energy by the Electrical Inspector is to be made for a period not exceeding six months calculated backwards from the date of reference to the Electrical Inspector. Thus, it is the date of reference to Electrical Inspector which is conclusive of the period of six months; the date of inspection, the date of raising dispute and the date of adjudication are immaterial. (Here, we may add, that such period of six months shall apply). 11. The above said deductions, drawn in the case of Belwal Spinning Mills, are accompanied by in-depth analysis of several provisions of the Act, the historical background and practical aspects of supply and consumption of electricity. As we find ourselves in entire agreement with the abovesaid statement of law, it is not necessary for us to make a detailed independent discussion of our own of the reasons as the same is available in the case of Belwal Spinning Mills. 12. In the present case, the demand raised by the appellant against the first respondent can be divided into two parts: (i) for the period during which the meter was burnt, and (ii) for the period for which the meter was not correct. For the period for which the readings could not be recorded or retrieved because the meter was burnt there is nothing wrong in the licensee having raised the demand based on the average consumption for the similar period during the previous year. It is a reasonable basis. Nothing has been brought on record by respondent No. 1 to show or even suggest that any basis other than the one adopted by the appellant could have been more reasonable and more appropriate for calculating the quantity of electricity consumed during the period of no-meter or no-meter-reading. 13. It is a reasonable basis. Nothing has been brought on record by respondent No. 1 to show or even suggest that any basis other than the one adopted by the appellant could have been more reasonable and more appropriate for calculating the quantity of electricity consumed during the period of no-meter or no-meter-reading. 13. For the period for which, according to the appellant, the meter was not correct, none of the parties has referred the dispute to the Electrical Inspector. The meter though it is alleged by the appellant to have remained not correct, readings have been regularly recorded, bills raised and also paid by the consumer-respondent No. 1. According to Section 26(6), the readings would bind the appellant and respondent No. 1 both. It has never been the case of the appellant at any stage that the meter was not correctly recording the consumption of electricity on account of being non-functional due to any fraud committed or device or trick adopted by the consumer-respondent No. 1 or that the body seal of the meter was found broken or tampered with. The respondent No. 1 was accepting and honouring the demands raised by the appellant and, therefore, respondent No. 1 cannot be expected to have raised a dispute and sought for a reference for determination by Electrical Inspector. The appellant could not have, therefore, revised the demand for such period based on average consumption during the previous year. There is yet another reason why the entitlement of the appellant to recover charges from the respondent No. 1 may have to be denied. According to the proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 26, the licensee cannot take off or remove any such meter as to which difference or dispute of the nature described in sub-section (6) has arisen until the matter has been determined by the Electrical Inspector. The purpose is to preserve the evidence. The dispute shall be expeditiously disposed of by the Electrical Inspector by applying scientific method of investigation to find out if the meter was incorrect and if so then what was the extent of error. In the present case, the meters said to be incorrect have been removed and replaced by the appellant. Admittedly, no dispute has been raised and referred to the Electrical Inspector. In the present case, the meters said to be incorrect have been removed and replaced by the appellant. Admittedly, no dispute has been raised and referred to the Electrical Inspector. The most material evidence being the meter itself has been lost by the act of the appellant in removing the incorrect meter. The appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own act and omission - the act of removing the meter and the omission to make a reference to the Electrical Inspector. 10. However, so far as the present case is concerned, it is not the case that the Electricity Company has issued any revised bill on the ground that the petitioner was undercharged due to some defect in the meter. If there was any defect in the meter due to which the petitioner felt that it was recording high consumption, it was for the petitioner to first raise dispute with respondent No. 2 by issuing notice and then to make application to the Electrical Inspector to decide the matter in dispute under Section 26(6) of the Act. As stated above, the petitioner has never acted as required by Sub-Section (6) of Section 26 of the Act. The bill issued to the petitioner is for the actual consumption found recorded in the meter. Therefore, the judgment in the case of Laffans (India) (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner shall have no application to the facts of the present case. 11. In the case of Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited and others Vs. Baba Baijanath Roller and Flour Mill Private Limited, reported in: (2014) 15 SCC 90 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph No. 12 as under: 12. We have noticed the facts in this case. 11. In the case of Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited and others Vs. Baba Baijanath Roller and Flour Mill Private Limited, reported in: (2014) 15 SCC 90 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paragraph No. 12 as under: 12. We have noticed the facts in this case. We have also considered the Sections of the Act of 1910 and it appears to us that Section 26 is relevant only when there is any difference or a dispute arises in connection with correctness of a meter, in that case the matter shall be decided, upon being applied by either party, by an Electrical Inspector and in the opinion of the Inspector if it is found that the meter is defective, the Inspector shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time not exceeding six months but if there is a question of fraud in tampering with the meter, in that case there is no question of applicability of Section 26 of the said Act in such a matter. In the instance case, we have asked the learned counsel appearing for the respondent whether following Section 26(6), the respondent ever asked or applied for checking of the meter by the Electrical Inspector on the ground of defective meter. The answer was in the negative. Therefore, it shows that the ingredients of Section 26(6) were not followed by the respondent to meet the necessity of checking the meter in question in accordance with the said provision. 12. In light of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds no illegality in the decision conveyed to the petitioner through the impugned communication dated 22.02.2007 at Annexure - C and also finds no illegality in issuing the bill to the petitioner for payment of Rs. 74,460.90/- paise for the actual consumption of the electricity recorded by the meter supplied to the petitioner. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Petition Dismissed