BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC. versus U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 197 · Decided: 10-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BELWAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 10, 1997 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Electlicity Law : 
Electricity Act, 191()-Sectipn 26(6) as substituted by Act 32 of 
(1~59}--Co1rectness of elecoicity meter in dispute-Reference of dispute to C 
Electrical Inspector--Meter found to have ceased to be c01rect---Held, it was 
Electiical inspector's. duty to estimate amount of energy supplied or electrical 
qua11tity consumed i11 supply to consumer "d1bi11g such time, 11ot exceedi11g 
six mo11ths"-Legislative amendme11t suggested,.' 
Sectio11 26 (7) a11d 20-Cliecking of 1i1eter-Held, meter ca11 be i11stalled D 
by the licensee in additio11 to the meter 'iiistalled in the premises of the 
. co11suiner to check and asce1tai11 the proper fu11ctio11i11g of the i11stalled 
111ete1~However this power would be. indepei1dent ofrefere11ce of any dispute 
as to c01rect11ess of the i11stalled meter whereupo11 the Electrical l11Spector will 
be the sole adjudicator of the dispute. 
Section 26(4), 26(6) and 2o-Mai11te11a11ce of co"ect meter i11 the 
premises of co11sume1~Licensee's duty-Held, it i11cludes alteration of the 
meter under S. 2()-Also held, this power does 11ot depend upon adjudicatio11 
of co"ectness of meter by Electrical Inspector 011 reference of dispute under 
section 26(6)---Howevei; power of removi11g the meter u11der Section 20 is 
circumsCTibed by the proviso to Section 26( 4) only when dispute as to 
co1rect11ess . of the meter has bee11 ref el1"ed to the l11spector under Section 
26(6). 
Words a11d Phrases : 
E 
F 
Expressio11 "not exceedi11g six 111011ths"-Mea11i11g of i11 the Co11text of G 
Sectio11 26( 6) of the Electricity Act. 
· 
Respondent Board installed. a meter in the factory of the Appellant 
and raised the biUs 'on the basis of the installed meter and the appellant 
used to pay each bill, Notice was issued by the respondent raising doubt 
about the correctness of the meter the contents of which was controverted H 
197 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A by the appellant. Thereafter, respondent installed a check-meter the test-
ing fee for which was deposited by the appellant with a request to the 
respondent to check the said check-meter. The respondent thereafter wrote 
to appellant that bills could be revised for the period check-meter was 
installed and raised demand and threatened to disconnect the electricity 
B supply if the payments were not made. The said action of the respondent 
was challenged by the appellant before the High Court. In the meantime, 
appellant made application to the Electrical Inspector to check the cor-
rectness of the original as well as the check-meter, and submitted his 
report under section 26(6) of the Act holding that both the original as well 
as the check-meter were incorrect. The Electrical Inspector made an 
C estimate of energy supplied to the appellant and authorised the respondent 
to raise demand for a period of six months and directed to install the 
original as well as the check-meter under section 26(1) of the Act. 
The High Court quashed various demand notices issued to the 
D appellant on the basis of the check-meter and directed payment on the 
basis of estimate of the Electrical Inspector. By another order on an 
another writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the action of the 
respondent in respect of another bill and disconnecting the supply of 
electricity in the factory of the appellant, the High Court directed the 
appellant to deposit huge sum of money and on such deposit the respon-
E dent was to restore the connection. The High Court further directed the 
respondent to issue fresh bill for a particular period and directed the 
appellant to pay such bill within one month. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that in the eye of law there can be 
p 
only one "correct meter" in the case of any consumer. If the meter so 
installed registers the amount of energy, the Board has no choice but to 
accept it as correct and once it is a correct meter it must be deemed to be 
correct all along unless it is doubted and dispute is raised and thereafter 
such. meter is dispensed with on being decided that it is incorrect by the 
Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Act. 
G 
The Respondent Board that it had the power to instal a check-meter 
for the purpose of checking the installed meter and to regularise the bill 
on the basis of the che

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.