JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present Second Appeal is filed by the appellant-UGVCL under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the impugned judgment and order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2013 by the leaned 3rd Additional District Judge, Sabarkantha District, Modasa dated 17.06.2015 confirming the judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 09/2007 by the learned Principal Civil Judge Bayad dated 15.03.2008 posing substantial questions of law as follows:- "(A) Whether both the Courts below were in error of law in prohibiting the electricity company from recovering money demanded under a lawfully issued supplementary bill, more particularly when the issuance of supplementary bill or the amount mentioned in the supplementary bill has not been challenged by the plaintiffs? (B) Whether both the Courts below were in error of law in holding that reference to Electrical Inspector was necessary under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910, even though it is an indisputable fact that no dispute was raised by the plaintiffs as regards the claim of electricity company about slow running of the meter, and no request or application was made by plaintiffs for making a reference to the Electrical Inspector? (C) Whether both the Courts below were in error of law in interdicting the due process of law and restraining the electricity company from recovering the amount of supplementary bill, more particularly when no grievance was raised by the plaintiffs as regards the propriety of the process and procedure followed by the electricity company for raising such supplementary bill? (D) Whether both the Courts below were in error of law in entertaining the suit and granting relief beyond the prayer clause contained in the plaint? (E) Whether the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below is otherwise in consonance with the provisions of law and the evidence on record of the case" 2. The background of the facts briefly summarized are as follows:- "The respondents-original plaintiffs are engaged in the business of making ice and selling cold milk. The respondent No. 1-original plaintiff had two different connections as a consumer with different consumer numbers as stated in the plaint. The background of the facts briefly summarized are as follows:- "The respondents-original plaintiffs are engaged in the business of making ice and selling cold milk. The respondent No. 1-original plaintiff had two different connections as a consumer with different consumer numbers as stated in the plaint. The Officers of the appellant-original defendant-Company visited the premises of the respondents-original plaintiffs on 11.05.2001, 26.05.2011 and 28.05.2011 and after the inspection prepared the inspection report and as there was nothing objectionable found with regard to the seal or meter, the respondents-original plaintiffs were not informed about any malfunctioning. The report is said to have been prepared on the basis of the inspection and meter was taken by them on the ground that it is running slow. It is the case that no panchnama was made, no statements of the respondents-original plaintiff were recorded and they were orally informed that in place of meter, which is taken by them, new meter is installed and the appellant-Company also informed that as the meter was running slow, the respondents-plaintiffs will have to pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/-, failing which, supply would be disconnected. Thereafter, the supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 85,211.36 is said to have been issued on 31.08.2011 informing with notice that if it is not paid, supply would be disconnected. Therefore, the suit came to be filed by the respondents-plaintiffs and on appreciation of material and evidence, the trial court partly allowed the suit of the plaint as stated in detailed in the impugned judgment and decree restraining the appellant-original defendant from disconnecting the supply. Against the same, Appeal came to be preferred by the appellant herein before the first Appellate Court and the first Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court after considering the provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, which has been assailed in the present Appeal posing substantial questions of law as stated above." 3. Learned advocate, Shri Maulik Nanavati referred to the background of the facts and submitted that Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides for raising bill, where the meter is not reflecting correct reading. Learned advocate, Shri Maulik Nanavati referred to the background of the facts and submitted that Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides for raising bill, where the meter is not reflecting correct reading. He submitted that both the Courts below committed an error in holding that the reference to the Electrical Inspector was necessary under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 even though no dispute was raised by the plaintiffs as regard for the electric charges. Learned advocate, Shri Nanavati also submitted that both the Courts below committed an error in restraining the Electric Company from recovering the amount of the supplementary bill, particularly when no grievance was raised by the original plaintiffs. He submitted that whether the meter was tampered with or not, is not an issue but whether the meter was showing correct reading for the purpose of consumption of energy. Learned advocate, Shri Nanavati, therefore, submitted that in exercise of powers under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, consumer could be charged for the period for six months and both the Courts below have failed to appreciate this aspect. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hyderabad Vanaspati Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board & Ors., reported in (1998) 4 SCC 470 . 4. Though the submissions have been made posing substantial questions of law as stated above, it is well settled that normally the concurrent finding of facts may not be disturbed in exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. Much reliance placed on the provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is required to be considered. Much reliance placed on the provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is required to be considered. The provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 provides, "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." 5. Thus the proviso clearly provides that either licensee or a consumer applies to the Electrical Inspector under the provision and it is obligatory that any such issue with regard to malfunctioning or slow running of the meter could be examined by the Electrical Inspector and, thereafter, assessment for the supply of energy could be made. In the facts of the case, there is no such procedure followed though it is obligatory for the appellant-Company as a licensee to comply with such procedure before the supplementary bill could be raised. The provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 clearly provides for the procedure, which is required to be followed in case there is a malfunctioning of the meter and/or it is running slow and on inspection, if it is found that it is running slow, procedure has to be followed. In other words, if during the inspection, the meter was found running slow, it could be referred to the Electrical Inspector, who on verification would take decision and also would make assessment for the supply of the electric energy for a period of six months as provided therein. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors. v. Smt. Basantibai, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 23 , wherein it has been observed, "It is evident from the provisions of this section that a dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct has to be decided by the Electrical Inspector upon application made by either of the parties. It is for the Inspector to determine whether the meter is correct or not and in case the Inspector is of the opinion that the meter is not correct he shall estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during a period not exceeding six months and direct the consumer to pay the same. If there is an allegation of fraud committed by the consumer in tampering with the meter or manipulating the supply line or breaking the body seal of the meter resulting in not registering the amount of energy supplied to the Consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, such a dispute does not fall within the purview of sub-section 6 of section 26. Such a dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is A outside the ambit of section 26(6) of the said Act. An Electrical Inspector, has, therefore, no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud. It is only the dispute as to whether the meter is/is not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed, can be decided by the Electrical Inspector under the provisions of the said Act." 6. Again the provision of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 has also been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2793 and considering earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 2005 SC 2486 , it has been clearly observed with regard to the scope of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and also the procedure, which is required to be followed. It has been clearly observed, "............. It has been clearly observed, "............. what is contemplated of Section 26(6) is a running meter but on account of some technical difficulties registered, the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply beyond the prescribed limits of error and the provision contemplates a meter which is either running slow or fast and not recording correct amount of energy supplied." 7. Thus the aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed, "10(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) xxx xxx xxx (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) xxx xxx xxx (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 the 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." 8. The aforesaid aspect has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in case of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Polylink Polymers (India) Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 GUJARAT 37. 9. The aforesaid aspect has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in a judgment in case of Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Polylink Polymers (India) Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 GUJARAT 37. 9. Therefore when the statute provides that if there is any dispute or issue with regard to the defect of the meter not recording consumption properly, the procedure has to be followed and the licensee like the appellant herein cannot decide and has no jurisdiction to decide. Admittedly, the fact remains that it has not been decided by the Electrical Inspector though it was obligatory that it should have been referred to the Electrical Inspector. Admittedly there is no issue with regard to the fact that there was any theft of energy as it is not even the case of the appellant regarding the theft of energy. Therefore unless it could be shown that there was malfunctioning of the meter as decided and found by the authority like the Electrical Inspector, the appellant had no authority to issue supplementary bill in exercise of provisions of Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910, which has also been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines with regard to the scope of exercise of discretion under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after the amendment in 1976. A word of caution has been expressed with regard to the scope of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code in Second Appeal that the concurrent finding of facts may not be disturbed unless there is any substantial question of law, which can be said to have been involved. In the facts of the case, as discussed above, law is well settled which has been interpreted and statutory provision as discussed above is also expressly providing for the procedure which has been admittedly not followed. 11. It is in these circumstances, the present Second Appeal does not call for any interference with the concurrent finding of facts as discussed above. The present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. 12. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.