JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. This appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited and others appellants/original respondent Nos. 3 and 5 against CAV judgment dated 15.6.2012 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 5448 of 2002 by learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by respondent No. 1/original petitioner came to be allowed and the orders impugned therein passed by the Electrical Inspector so upheld by the appellate authority came to be quashed and set aside and resultantly, the supplementary bills issued by GEB were also set aside. 2. Further consequential relief was granted whereby the amount deposited by the petitioner was given credit for the future bills or alternatively to be refunded with simple interest @ 8% from the date of the deposit till return. 3. The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act challenged the supplementary bill issued by Electricity Company and also order dated 6.2.1997 passed by Electrical Inspector so upheld by the appellate authority on 17.4.2002. 4. The facts recorded by learned Single Judge in para 2, 2.1., 2.2 and 2.3, for which by an large there is no dispute and the above paragraphs for the sake convenience are reproduced herein. "2. The petitioner is a consumer of high tension electricity installed by the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB for short), now succeeded by the Utter Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Such connection was activated on 7.7.1995. The Gujarat Electricity Board had installed Electronic Trivector Static meter manufactured by L & T Ltd. On 12.7.1996, officers of GEB checked the meter installed at the factory premises of the petitioner Company and found that the meter was running slow by 40.54%. On 16.7.1996, GEB officials once again visited the premises of the petitioner Company and took meter readings. On all three occasions, the meter was found running slow by 32.35, 39.01 and 36.14 respectively. On 1.10.1996, GEB officials installed a new static meter and took the parallel readings of both the meters and found that the original meter was running slow by 40.20%. 2.1 On 1.11.96, GEB issued a supplementary bill of Rs. 8,34,690.29 ps. Such bill was raised on the basis of slow running of the matter by 40.54% for the entire period of 15 months from the date of installation, i.e. 7.7.95 to 1.10.96. 2.1 On 1.11.96, GEB issued a supplementary bill of Rs. 8,34,690.29 ps. Such bill was raised on the basis of slow running of the matter by 40.54% for the entire period of 15 months from the date of installation, i.e. 7.7.95 to 1.10.96. The petitioner challenged such supplementary bill before the Electrical Inspector by raising dispute about the correctness of the meter under section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. On 17.12.96, the Electrical Inspector along with the officials of the GEB visited the site and tested the old meter and found it to be running slow by 39.84%. 2.2 The Electrical Inspector vide his order dated 6.2.97 decided the petitioner's dispute with respect to the supplementary bill. The Electricity Inspector held that the meter was running slow by 39.84% but that supplementary bill can be raised only for a period of six months anterior to 12.7.96 i.e. date on which the slow running of the meter was detected. He, therefore, directed the GEB to issue fresh supplementary bill on the basis of slow running of the meter by 39.84% and confining such additional charges for a period between 12.1.96 and 12.7.96. 2.3 Dissatisfied by such order of the Electrical Inspector, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government. In the meantime, acting on the order of the Electrical Inspector, GEB issued a revised bill of Rs. 5,73,919.96 ps. on 25.2.97. Yet again, GEB authorities issued another supplementary bill for an amount of Rs. 5,69,287.68 ps. On 21.5.97 presumably in super-session of the previous supplementary bill. The petitioner had approached this Court more than once at the interim stages. However, it is not necessary to burden this order with the details of such litigation. The appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed by order dated 17.4.2002. Hence this petition." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on provisions of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 (in short "Act 1910") that the duty was cast upon the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) to raise the dispute with regard to correctness of the meter and if such dispute is referred it was to be decided by the Electrical Inspector before issuance of supplementary bill. The above requirement of law was not followed and therefore, the orders impugned were challenged. The above requirement of law was not followed and therefore, the orders impugned were challenged. It was further contended even before the installation, meter was checked and certified and slowness in recording consumption was required to be established particularly with regard to the point of time about meter starting malfunctioning. That estimate of malfunctioning of the meter to the farthest point of 6 months by the Electrical Inspector is unreasonable and arbitrary since, no material was produced on record and even slowness of meter varied during different readings and record about consumption of electricity. It varied in the range of 32.5% to 39.01% and therefore in absence of any scientific analysis and cause for slowness impugned bills and orders were under challenge. That case laws relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner were also considered. 6. As against above, learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Company relied on powers conferred under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 and in absence of any error and plain reading of provision empowered Electrical Inspector in the facts and circumstances of this case to decide about malfunctioning of the meter for the period of 6 months upon a reference is made by either consumer or Electricity company. 7. 7. Thus, upon recording contentions as above, learned Single Judge referred to Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910 and decision in the case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. v. U.P. State Electricity Board, AIR 1997 SC 2793 and in para 9 further referred to the decision in the case of Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Laffans (India) (P) Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 327 and found that even at the incident of the consumption, an application can be decided by Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act 1910 and held that the procedure established under the rules of checking such meter on the site after installation was not followed by the authority and the Electrical Inspector failed to ascertain the exact period of commencement of the malfunctioning of the meter accepted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the different range of readings about slowness of the meter and certificate issued by L & T Company that the meter was defective from inception and concluded that even according to Electrical Inspector himself it was not possible to ascertain the period of commencement of malfunctioning and Electrical Inspector was not only to judge the degree of slowness but also the period not exceeding 6 months when such recording would have prevailed. 8. Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant heavily relied on the language of Section 26(6) of the Act 1910 and submitted that the interpretation put forth by learned Single Judge of the above provisions is erroneous and deserves to be rejected inasmuch as interpretation of the words "during such time" in Section 26(6) of the Act, 1910 permits Electrical Inspector to estimate the amount of energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during such time but not exceeding 6 months. It is further submitted that conclusion drawn by learned Single Judge about a certificate issued by manufacturer namely L & T Limited of the electrical meter as defective was misconceived. It is further submitted that conclusion drawn by learned Single Judge about a certificate issued by manufacturer namely L & T Limited of the electrical meter as defective was misconceived. By relying on various pleadings in the writ petition and affidavits filed by the authorities namely by Executive Engineer (O & M) by GEB, and even by respondent No. 4 L & T Limited of procedure followed by the Company before the meter was supplied to electricity Company and orders passed by Electrical Inspector and the appellate authority, it is submitted that learned Single Judge has committed an error in not believing the procedure followed by the authority and further reliance is placed on condition and miscellaneous charges for supply of electrical energy governing the subject matter of the appeal. 9. As against above, Mr. K.B. Pujara, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and original writ petitioner would contend that conclusion drawn by learned Single Judge are based on well appreciated facts and law with regard to subject petition and requires no interference in absence of any error on law or facts and the appeal deserves to be rejected. According to learned counsel for respondent powers may be available with Electrical Inspector under Section 26 of the Act, 1910 about making an estimate of the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply during the time of material functioning or the time where in the opinion of Electrical Inspector such meter seized to record correct meter but basic requirement is of availability of material on record so that consumer can be supplied electricity bill based on opinion of the electrical inspector. It is submitted that irrespective of any material or available evidence in all cases assessment of electricity consumption cannot be made stretching it to maximum period of 6 months. It is submitted that irrespective of any material or available evidence in all cases assessment of electricity consumption cannot be made stretching it to maximum period of 6 months. In the facts and circumstances of the case there was no fraud or any irregularity or any unauthorised use of electricity by the consumer and range of readings of meter and slowness varied from time to time and even meter was also defective since installation and the petitioner complained about it to the authorities and even approached the Electrical Inspector for redressal of grievances but it has resulted into imposing such charges of consumption of electricity, for which, the petitioner cannot be saddled with huge financial burden and in view of decision for which reliance was placed by learned Single Judge law on the subject is no more res integra and in absence of any error either on law or on fact the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the context of submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, following undisputed facts emerged on the record. (a) the consumer-appellant applied for electricity connection and high tension electrical connection was approved and sanctioned in favour of the petitioner-company. (b) the electricity meter was installed on 7.7.1995 and was certified by the manufacturer as correct and accurate. On the very day the above meter was made functional. Initially, on 12.7.1996 officers of erstwhile GEB (predecessor of appellant Electricity Company) carried out an inspection and checked the meter installed in the premises of the consumer company and was found that the meter was running slow by 40.54%. (c) Again officials of GEB decided and inspected the meter on 16.7.1996 and recorded readings the meter was found running slow by 32.33, 39.01 and 36.14% respectively. Even thereafter a new static meter was installed on 1.10.1996 by GEB and parallel readings of both the meters, the meter for which readings were taken earlier and a new static meter and was found that the original meter was running slow by 40.20%. (d) On the basis of visit, inspection and recording of readings about slowness of the original meter and a new static meter and supplementary bill was raised of Rs. 8,34,690.29 ps. (d) On the basis of visit, inspection and recording of readings about slowness of the original meter and a new static meter and supplementary bill was raised of Rs. 8,34,690.29 ps. on 1.11.1996 and for the entire period of 15 months namely from the date of installation to last reading of the meter i.e. 7.7.1995 to 1.10.1996 by applying basis of slowness of the meter by 40.54% a supplementary bill as above was issued. (e) The dispute was raised by the consumer company before Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910 and thereafter Electrical Inspector along with officials of GEB visited the site and decided the original meter on 7.12.1996 which was found to be running slow by 39.84%. 11. The decision was rendered by Electrical Inspector deciding the dispute vide order dated 6.2.1997 by holding that the meter was running slow by 39.84% but amount of supplementary bill was restricted only for a period of 6 months i.e. prior to 12.7.1996 i.e. the date on which slowness of the meter was detected first time by officials of GEB upon their visit of the meter installed in the factory premises of the consumer company. Therefore, fresh supplementary bill was issued on the basis of slow running of meter by 39.84% restricting such additional charges for a period of 6 months namely 12.1.1996 and 12.7.1996. The above revised bill was of Rs. 5,73,919.96 dated 25.2.1997. 12. Having carefully perused order impugned passed by learned Single Judge in the appeal conclusions drawn by learned Single Judge on factual aspects so recorded in para 6 and restrictions of period of 6 months, for which, an amount of assessment of consumption of electricity can be ascertained by the electrical inspector there is no substantial grievance by the appellant but interpretation put forth to sub-section (6) of Section 26 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and applicability of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) and Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking (supra) is disputed for the sake of convenience, we would like to reproduce Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act which 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." 13. Section 26(6) of the Act 2010 is interpreted in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) to which reference is made in the later decision of Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking (supra), in which, the Apex Court considered other decisions about applicability of sub-section (6) of Section 26 only when the meter is not corrected. The above section will not be available in the case and will have not applicability if the consumer is found to have committed a fraud with the licensee and thereby illegally executed the supply of energy preventing or avoiding its recording or has resorted to a trick or a device whereby also the electricity is consumed by the consumer unauthorisedly. 14. In paragraph 9, the Apex Court considered 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. The case before the Apex Court was about a meter which was burnt and was completely non-functional and, therefore, it was not possible for the Electrical Inspector to assess the correct amount of energy supplied, consumed and recorded. The case before the Apex Court was about a meter which was burnt and was completely non-functional and, therefore, it was not possible for the Electrical Inspector to assess the correct amount of energy supplied, consumed and recorded. In para 10 the Apex Court reproduced law laid down by the Apex Court in its earlier decision of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) which is reproduced herein below: "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) 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 months, referred to in sub-section (6) of Section 26 (as made by Act 32 of 1959) 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. (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 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 (here, we may add, that such period of six months shall apply.)" (emphasis supplied) 15. Learned Single Judge has also considered paragraphs 39, 40, 41 and 42 of Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) and found that the duty of Electrical Inspector was not only to judge the accuracy of the meter in recording consumption, but also to ascertain as to for which period upto a maximum of 6 months, the meter would have malfunctioned or recorded incorrect reading. That scope of inquiry to be made under Section 26(6) of the Act 2010 by the Electrical Inspector is to be based on two aspects namely one is with regard to the degree of slowness or otherwise of the meter and secondly, about the period not exceeding 6 months during which such meter might have malfunctioned. In the facts of this case and it almost unchallenged that even according to Electrical Inspector no material was available to ascertain to come to a conclusion about the exact period during which such meter might have malfunctioned. In the facts of this case and it almost unchallenged that even according to Electrical Inspector no material was available to ascertain to come to a conclusion about the exact period during which such meter might have malfunctioned. Other facts about verifying range of slowness of meter from time to time and a certificate issued by the Engineer of the L & T company about defective meter since inception, which was collected by GEB officials for which no opportunity was given to the consumer and that the certificate did not contained any basis for the conclusion that the meter was defective from the inception, we find above findings of learned Single Judge on facts cannot be termed or found contrary to record. When the Electrical Inspector himself concluded that it was not possible for him to ascertain the period of malfunctioning of the meter, issuance of supplementary bill by the appellate-Electricity Company based on erroneous opinion of Electrical Inspector was rightly set aside by learned Single Judge. That interpretation put forth by learned Single Judge "during such time" on the basis of case law in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) and Bombay Electricity Supply & Transport Undertaking (supra) decision of the Apex Court again a well considered ratio in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, powers conferred upon Electrical Inspector to assess the amount of consumption of Electricity in a case of malfunctioning of a meter is to be based on sound material which includes technical data and scientific analysis and also comparative studies of other circumstances and in the present case consumer company generated electricity through its diesel generating cell coupled with inability on the part of the Electrical Inspector to determine and assess the starting point of malfunctioning of the meter so that proper assessment is carried out as envisaged under Section 26(6) of the Act. That none of the conditions and miscellaneous charges for supply of electrical energy including condition No. 34 will apply in the facts of this case. We find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal preferred. 16. In absence of merit, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.