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

- **Citation:** [1997] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 197
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1997-07-10
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 4401-03 A of 1997
- **Bench:** G.N. Ray, G.B. Pattanaik
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/belwal-spinning-mills-ltd-etc-etc-v-u-p-state-electricity-board-and-anr-etc-etc-16105
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

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 testing 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 correctness 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 responE 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,948 of 87,953. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39948 for what follows._

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 testing 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 correctness 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 responE 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 check meter. It was also submitted that distinction must
be drawn between the estimating or quantifying amount of energy and the
H duration of the correctness of the meter and that the former did not affect
BELW AL SPINNING MILLS LID. v. U.P. STAIB ELCTRICITY BOARD
199
the latter.
A
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. On a conjoint reading of the sub-sections of section 26 of
the Electricity Act, it is evident that consumption of electricity or electrical B
quantity in the supply, shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter and
the meter and the other apparatus for recording the consumption of
electricity by a consumer will be· deemed to be correct if the recording is
within the permissible limit of error as prescribed. Although the licensee is
clothed with the power to maintain a correct meter installed at the premises
of the consumer and for such purpose can enter the premises of the conC
sumer and the licensee can also repair or alter the meter and other electrical apparatus it found defective on checking or testing by the licensee, but
if the dispute as to correct status of the meter or other electrical apparatus
is raised either by the licensee or by the consumer by making reference to
the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) of Section 26, then such D
dispute can be determined only by the Electrical Inspector and the meter
or apparatus cannot also be changed by the licensee unless the dispute is
resolved by the Electrical Inspector. If there is a dispute as to the proper
functioning of the meter or check meter or other electrical apparatus under
sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Electrical Inspector upon entering the
reference would determine the dispute as to the proper functioning of the E
meter or other electrical apparatus and in the event the Electrical Inspector
comes to the finding that the meter ceased to be correct, he is to determine
the quantum of the electricity consumed during the statutory period
referred to in sub-section (6). Both the licensee and the consumer have to
accept the estimate of supply of electricity to the consumer as may be
determined by the Electrical Inspector for the statutory period referred to
in sub-section (6) of Section 26. (226-C-H; 227-G-H)
2. After the amendment of sub-section (6) of section 26, on a finding
that the meter in question has ceased to be correct, the Electricity InspecF
tor has been relieved of the statutory duty to estimate the total quantity of G
energy supplied to the consumer for the entire period during which the
meter, in the opinion of the Inspector, shall not have been correct. But the
Inspector has a statutory duty to estimate the supply of energy for a
limited period referred to in sub-section (6), namely, "during such time
not exceeding six months". The point of time with reference to which the H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A electricity consumed by the consumer is to be estimated by the Electrical
Inspector for such period not exceeding six months has not been specifl·
cally indicated in sub-section (6). Unless the adjudication as to the proper.
functioning of the meter is made, the question of estimating the supply of
electrieity for the statutory period during which such meter shall not have
B been correct, will not arise. Taking into consideration the time-lag inherent
between raising of dispute and adjudication of such dispute, the expression
"during such time" in sub-section (6) only means the time during which
the dispute is raised for reference and the dispute is finally adjudicated.
Hence, the estimate of supply of energy by the Inspector is to be made for
C a period not exceeding six months prior to the date of raising the dispute
for reference to the Electrical Inspector. The expression "not exceeding six.
months" indicates that the Electrical Inspector even when comes to the
finding that the meter in question has ceased to be correct, is not required
in all cases to make an estimate of consumption of electricity for a period
up to six months prior to the date of raising of the dispute for reference
D to the Electrical Inspector. In a given case, the Electrical Inspector may
come to the .finding that the meter ceased to be correct from a particular
date which is not up to six months earlier to the date raising the dispute
for reference. In so.ch case, the estimate to be prepared by the Electrical
Inspector will only cover the period prior to raising the dispute during
E which, according to the Electrical Inspector, the meter had ceased to be
correct. [223-CF; 224-B·F]
3.1 But for any other period anterior to the statutory period, the
legislature, in no uncertain terms, has indicated in the latter part of
p
sub-section (6) of Section 26 that the 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 provided no fraud has been practiced
by the consumer. By the amendment in sub-section (6) the Electrical
Inspector has been purposely absolved from the duty to determine as to
G from which point of time beyond the said statutory period, the meter had
. ceased to function so that for such entire period, the estimation of the
supply of electricity need not be made. Such amendment of sub-section (6),
only means that beyond the statutory period, in the event of dispute
between the parties as to the proper functioning of the meter arid other
H electrieal apparatus, the consumer has liability to pay the estimated
l
•
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.STATEELCTRICITYBOARD
201
amount indicated by the Electrical Inspector limiting the estimate upto the A
statutory period and not beyond that but for the other anterior period the
consumer is required to pay according to the consumption of electricity
registered in the disputed meter provided there is no fraud practiced by
the consumer because dispute of such anterior period remains unresolved
by the change introduced by the amendment. [227-A-H]
B
3.2 Such legislative change by the amendment of sub- section (6) of
Section 26 has been introduced to set at rest any dispute between the
licensee and the consumer about the actual consumption of the quantity of
electricity by the consumer where no fraud has been practiced by the consumer for all other periods anterior to statutory period for estimation. C
'fhere is good reason for such .legislative change because it may not be
possible to precisely determine exactly from which point of time the meter
ceased to be correct. Simply on the finding that the meter had ceased to be
correct by the Electrical Inspector on entering the reference a licensee may
not be justified in contending that a particular meter has ceased to be
correct from a particular point of time even though the licensee, despite its D
statutory duty to maintain the correct meter by repairing or rectifying the
defective meter and by replacing it if necessary has failed to take the
appropriate step. [228-A-C; F]
4. Although the licensee has the obligation to keep the installed meter E
and other electrical apparatus in proper condition by resorting to regular
checking and testing repairing etc. but the feasibility of constant checking,
repairing etc. of the meters of a large number of consumers in the presentday set-up may not be a practical proposition. In the teeth of.sub-section (6)
of Section 26 as amended, .it is quite likely that in many cases, the licensee
may suffer serious prejudice in not bei.ng able to realise from the consumers F
the revenue for the electricity consumed where even though no fraud was
. practised by the consumer, the defect .in the meter escaped the attention of
the employees of the licensee either for genuine reasons or in a designed
manner thereby bringing an unfortunate situation when the licensee can
recover the estimated amount determined by the Electrical Inspector in a G
disputed case limited only to the statutory period but confining the revenue
for the entire anterior period, which may go for years, only on the basis of
reading in the defective meter .. Since after amendment of Section 26(6) of the
Electridty Act, the position .in law is such, a proper legislative amendment is
desirable so as to protect the large number of licensee including the
Electricity Board from suffering huge loss of revenue. [230-C-F]
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.,
B
[1983] 1 SCC 147; J.K Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.,
[1961] 3 SCR 193; State of U.P. v. Radhey Shyam, [1989] 1 SCC 591 and
Punjab Land Development Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, [1990] 3
sec 682, referred to.
5. A licensee is authoritised under sub-section (7) of Section 26, in
addition to the meter installed in the premises of consumer as referred to
in sub-section (1) of Section 26, other meter or apparatus as the licensee
may deem fit for the purpose of recording or regulating the amount of
energy supplied to the consumer. Such power also does not depend on the
C existence of any dispute as to the correctness of the meter installed. The
expression "check meter" has no special significance or legal incidence for
which there is a bar that check meter cannot be treated as an altered meter
if the licensee intends to replace the defective meter by the check meter.
Such power of installing the meter, replacing it by another meter is also
independent of existence of any dispute between the consumer and the
D licensee. It will be open to the Electrical Inspector to ascertain the correct·
ness of the check meter along with the disputed meter when dispute is
referred for adjudication by the Electrical Inspector and the licensee found
its case with reference to check meter. Prior to the amendment of Section
26(6) of the Electricity Act, the Electrical Inspector or the competent perE son specially appointed by the State Government in this behalf, had a
statutory duty to first determine whether the meter in question was defective and thereafter to estimate the quantity of tne electricity consumed
during such time as the meter in the opinion of the Electricity Inspector or
the competent person "shall not have been correct". After the amendment
in Sub-section (6) of Section 26, the Electrical Inspector is the only
F
statutory authority to decide the dispute about the correctness of the meter,
if such dispute is raised by either of the parties. [222-C-H; 223-A-B]
6. Section 20 of the Electricity Act authorises the licensee to enter the
premises of the consumer for inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the
G supply lines, meters, fittings and apparatus for the supply of energy belong·
ing to the licensee. Such power under Section 20 does not depend on the
adjudication of correctness of the meter and other apparatus by the Electri·
cal Inspector on a reference under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. But
such power flows from the statutory duties and functions of the licensee to.
maintain the correct meter for recording the quantum of electricity sup·
H plied to the consume<. [221-G-H; 222-A-B]
;.
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.STATEELCJRICITYBOARD[G.N.RAY,J.] 203
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4401-03 A
of 1997 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.92/10.3.92 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 10379, 16723/88 and 16325/90 and
W. No. NiV1992.
T.R. Andharujina, Solicitor General, B. Sen, Ms. Sunita Sharma,
Subrat Birla, S.A. Gadkar, P.H. Parekh, Sunil Gupta, K.J. John, Pradeep
Misra, T. Mahipal, D.M. Mahajan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Rakhi Ray and
Ms. T. Sudha for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
c
G.N. RAY, J. (1) The appeals arising out of Special leave Petition
Nos. 5262-64 of 1992 are directed against order dated February 19, 1992
passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposing of D
Writ Petition No. 10379 of 1988 challenging the notice dated April 26, 1988
and the demand dated May 17, 1988 of the U.P. State Electricity Board
and Writ Petition Nos. 16723/88 and 16325/90 challenging the validity of
the bills for the months of June and July, 1988 issued by the U.P. State
Electricity Board and also the demand dated June 14, 1990 made by the
said Board. By the impugned judgment dated February 19, 1992, the High E
Court quashed various demand notices issued to the appellant on the basis
of check meters installed by the respondent U .P. State Electricity Board
and directing that payment for six months would be made on the basis of
estimate of Electrical Inspector dated October 10, 1990 and further directing that the fresh bills for the period 7.9.87 to 10.10.90 be issued on the F
basis of new meter. By the order dated March 10, 1992, the Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court passed an interim order on another Writ
Petition filed by the appellant on March 9, 1992 challenging the action of
the U .P. State Electricity Board in respect of the bill dated January, 1992
and disconnecting the supply of electricity in the factory of the appellant. G
By the order dated March· 10, 1992, the High Court directed the appellant
to deposit Rs. 10 lacs and on such deposit, the U.P. State Electricity Board
was to restore the connection within 24 hours and also directing the U .P.
State Electricity Board to prepare the bills for the period subsequent to
10.10.90 within a months with a further direction to the appellant to pay
such bill within a month thereafter.
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
The relevant facts leading to the controversy as to the raising
demands for the bills and the consequential direction passed by the High
Court on February 19, 1992 and March 10, 1992 are stated hereunder.
On February 7, 1986 U.P. State Electricity Board installed a meter
B bearing No. 5850497 in the factory of the appellant. The Board carried out
periodical inspection and tests and had raised the bills on the basis of the
said installed meter and the appellant had also paid such bills. On September 7, 1987, the U.P. State Electricity Board issued a notice raising doubt
about the correctness of the said meter No. 5850497. On October 25, 1987,
the appellant controverted the contents of the said notice of the Electricity
C Board and asserted that the meter was correct. No reference to the
Electrical Inspector was made under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910
by the Board. The Board installed a check meter on November 30, 1987.
The appellant, however, deposited the testing fee and requested the
Electricity Board to check the said test meter. The Board, however, conD tinued to raise the bills on the basis of the said check meter for the period
December, 1987 to May, 1988. On April 26, 1988, the Electricity Board
wrote to the appellant that the Bills for May, 1987 to November, 1987could
be revised on the basis of check meter and sought information for the
purpose of revising of the bills prior to 1987. On May 17, 1987, the
Electricity Board raised a demand of Rs. 10,70,886.82 for the period May,
E 1987 to November, 1987 on the basis of reading in the check meter and
threatened the appellant that the electricity connection would be discontinued if the payment was not made. It was at this stage that the appellant
moved a Writ Petition No. 10379 of 1988 challenging the said notice dated
April 26, 1988 and the demand dated May 17, 1988. During the pendency
F
of the said Writ Petition, the Electricity Board again raised bills for the
months of June and July, 1988 on the basis of check meter and also
threatened the appellant that disconnection would be resorted to if the
payment was not made. The appellant then moved another Writ Petition
No. 16723/88 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the said bills for
June and July, 1988. By an interim order, the High Court restrained the
G disconnection of the electric supply subject to the payment of electricity
dues by the appellant on the basis of original meter reading and furnishing
security and bank guarantee for Rs. 1 lakh every month. The Electricity
Board raised additional demand of Rs. 5,54,963.64 ending July 1988 on the
basis of check meter. The appellant moved the third Writ Petition on June
21, 1990 being writ petition No. 16325/90 challenging the demand dated
H June 4, 1990 for the said sum of Rs. 5,54,963.64. The High Court passed
BEL WAL SPINNING MILLS LTD. v. U.P. STATEELCTRICITY BOARD (G.N. RAY, J.) 205
an interim order staying the operation of the demand and directed the A
appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It may be stated that on July
9, 1988 the appellant made an application for reference to the Electrical
Inspector to check the correctness of the original meter and also the check
meter. Between 26th June, 1990 and 28th June, 1990, the work of inspection
was carried out and on October 10, 1990 the Electrical Inspector submitted
a report containing his decision under Section 26( 6) of the Electricity Act, B
1910. In the said report, the Electrical Inspector held that the original
meter as well as the check meter were incorrect. The Electrical Inspector
made· an estimate of the energy supplied to the appellant during the period
of six months from December, 1989 to May, 1990 and authorised the Board
to raise a demand accordingly for a period of six months and the Electrical C
Inspector also directed that the original meter as well as the check meter
should be installed under Section 26(1) of the Electricity Act.
As aforesaid, on February 19, 1992, by common judgment the High
Court disposed of all the said Writ Petitions by quashing \'arious demand
notices issued on the basis of the check meter and directing that the D
payment oe made on the basis of estimate of Electrical Inspector dated
October 10, 1990 in respect of the said period of six months and also
directed that fresh bills for the period September 7, 1987 to October 10,
1990 be issued .on the basis of new meter. Thereafter, the fourth Writ
Petition not numbered as yet was moved by the appellant on March 9, 1992
in respect of bill for January, 1992 in which an interim order was passed E
on March 10, 1992. Such interim order is also impugned in one of these
appeals.
Mr. Sunil Gupta the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
these appeals has contended that under Section 20 of the India Electricity F
Act, 1910, the State Electricity Board being the licensee has power to enter
the premises of the appellant and to remove fitting where a supply of
energy is no longer required. The licensee has also the power of inspecting
testing repairing or altering the electric supply-lines, meters, fittings, and
apparatus for· the supply of energy belonging to the licensee. The Board is G
also empowered to ascertain the amount of energy supplied or the electrical quantity contained in the supply.
Mr. Gupta has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 26(6) of
the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 as it stood before the amendment to the
following effect :
H
A
B
c
D
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
Section 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, or a competent person specially appointed by the State Government in this behalf; and where the
meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector or person, ceased to
be correct, such Inspector or person shall estimate the amount of
the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity
contained in the supply, during such time as the meter shall not in
the opinion of such Inspector or person have been correct, and
where the matter has been decided by any person other than the
Electrical Inspector, an appeal shall lie to the Inspector, whose
decision shall in every case be final ; but save as aforesaid, the
register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive
proof of such amount of 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.
Mr. Gupta has also drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions
of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act as it stands amended by Act No.
E 32 of 1959 :-
F
G
H
26. Meters : ( 1) In the absense of an agreement to the country, the
amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity
contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct
meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause ,
the consumer to be supplied with such a meter :
Provided that the licensee may require the consumer to give
him security for the price of a meter and enter into an agreement
for the hire thereof, unless the consumer elects to purchase a
meter.
(2) Wliere the consumer so enters into an agreement for the hire
of a meter, the licensee shall keep the meter correct, and, in
default of his doing so, the consumer shall, for so long as the
default continues, cease to be liable to pay for the hire of the
meter.
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.SfATEELCTRICITYBOARD[G.N.RAY,J.) 207
(3) Where the meter is the property of the consumer, he shall A
keep the meter correct, and in default of his doing so, the
licensee may, after giving him seven days' notice, for so long
as the default continues, cease to supply energy through the
meter.
(4) The licensee on any person duly authorised by the licensee B
shall, at any reasonable time and on informing the consumer
of his intention, have access to, and be at liberty to inspect
and test, and for that purpose, if he thinks fit, take off and
"
remove any meter referred to in sub-section (1) : and except
--
where the meter is hired as aforesaid, all reasonable expenses c
of, and incidental to, such inspecting, testing taking of and
removing shall, if the meter is found to be otherwise than
correct, be recovered from the consumer, and, where any
difference or dispute arises as to the amount of such
reasonable expenses, the matter shall be referred to an D
Electrical Inspector, and the decision of such Inspector shall
be final:
(5) ......................................
(6) Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any E
meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the
matter shall be decided, upon the application or 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 F
consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply,
during such time, not exceeding §ix months, as the meter shall
'
not, in the opinion or' such Inspector have been correct; but
save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the
absense of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or G
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.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
(7) In addition to any meter which may be placed upon the
premises of a consumer in pursuance of the provisions of subsection (1), the licensee may place upon such premises such
meter, maximum demand indicator or other apparatus as he
thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining or regulating either
the amount of energy supplied to the consumer, or the number of hours during which the supply is given, or the rate per
unit of time at which energy is supplied to the consumer, or
any other quantity or time connected with the supply :
Provided that the meter, indicator or apparatus shall not, in
the absense of an agreement to the contrary be placed otherwise
than between the distributing mains of the licensee and any meter
referred to in sub-section (1) :
Provided also, that, where the charges for the supply of energy
depend wholly or partly upon the reading indicating of any such
meter, indicator or apparatus as aforesaid the licensee shall, in the
absense of an agreement to the country, keep the meter, indicator
or apparatus correct; and the provisions of sub sections (4) (5)
and (6) shall in that case apply as though the meter, indicator or
app_aratus were a meter referred to in sub- section (1).
Explanation - A meter shall be deemed to be "correct" if it
registers the amount of energy supplied, or the ekctrical quantity
contained in the supply, within the prescribed limits of error and
a maximum demand indicator or other apparatus referred to in
sub-section (7) shall be deemed to be "correct" if it complies with
such conditions as may be prescribed in the case of any such
indicator or other apparatus."
Mr. Gupta has also drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 57 of
the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 Rule 57 runs to the following effect :
Rule 57 - Meter, maximum demand indicators and other apparatus
on consumers' premises.
(1) Any meter or maximum demand indicator or other apparatus
placed upon a consumer's premises in accordance with SecH
tion 26 shall be of appropriate capacity and shall be deemed
BELWALSPINNINGMILLSLTD. v. U.P.STATEELCTRICITYBOARD(G.N.RAY,J.) 209
to be correct if its limits of error are within the limits specified A
in the relevant Indian Standard Specification and where no
such specification exists, the limits of error do not exceed 3
per cent above or below absolute accuracy at all loads in
excess of one tenth of full load and upto full load.
(2) No meter shall register at no load.
(3) Every supplier shall provide and maintain in proper condition
such suitable apparatus as may be prescribed or approved by
B
the Inspector for the examination, testing and regulation of
meters used or intended to be used in connection with the C
supply of energy :
Provided that the supplier may with the approval of the Inspector
and shall, if required by the Inspector, enter into a joint arrangement with
any other supplier for the purpose aforesaid.
( 4} Every supplier shall examine, test and regulate all meters,
maximum demand indicators and other apparatus for ascer•
taining the amount of energy supplied before first installation
at the consumer's premises and at such other intervals as may
be directed by the State Government in this behalf.
(5) Every supplier shall maintain a register of meters showing the
date last test, the error recorded at the time of the test, limit ·
of accuracy after adjustment and final test, the date of installation, withdrawal, reinstallation etc., for the examination of
the Inspector or his authorised representative.
( 6) Where the supplier has failed to examine, test and regulate
the meters keep records thereof as aforesaid, the Inspector
may cause such meters to be tested and sealed at the cost of
the owners of the meters in case it is found defective."
D
E
F
Mr. Gupta has contended that on a correct reading of Section 26 as G
a whole along with all important deeming clauses in the Explanation
containing the definition of correct meter as also along with reading of
Section 26(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, it would be evident that there
can be in the eye of law only one 'correct meter' in the case of any
consumer. The deeming clause in the explanation statutorily determines H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A and declares the correctness of the meter if only it registers the amount of
energy supplied within the prescribed limits of error and leaves the same
to nobody's liking or imagination. If the meter so installed registers the
amount of energy, the Board has no choice but to accept it as correct and
once a correct meter it must be deemed to be correct all along unless it is
B doubted and dispute is raised and thereafter such meter is disp<;nsed with
on being decided that it is incorrect by the Electrical Inspector in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 26( 6) of the Indian
Electricity Act Mr. Gupta has submitted that so long meter on being
adjudicated as defective is not discarded by replacing correct meter, the
consumer treats the said meter as the correct and can raising the bill on
C the basis of any other meter.
Mr. Gupta has submitted that in the instant case, the Board has not
taken any. step to refer the dispute to Electrical Inspector to correct the
meter even when it had doubted about the correctness of the installed
D meter. The appellant also did not raise any doubt about the correctness of
the said meter. But during the pendency of the Writ Petition, th1~ appellant
even though not required to raise dispute took steps to get the dispute as
to the correctness of the meter referred to the Electrical Inspector. Mr.
Gupta has submitted that the check meter installed by the Board cannot
be treated as a correct meter or replacement of original meter. The check
E meter was installed by the Board for the purpose of checking the correctness of the original meter installed earlier. Therefore, the very purpose of
the check meter was to take the reading of the check meter for the purpose
of verifying the reading in the original meter installed by the Board Mr.
Gupta has submitted that until and unless any doubt raised about the
F
correctness of the meter is finally scrutinised and decided by the Electrical
Inspector on a reference made to such authority, the Board should not be
permitted to install another meter simply by doubting the correctness of
the earlier meter installed by it Any such liberty to be given to the Board
will amount to permitting the Board to short circuit and avoid the fair and
impartial mechanism provided under Section 26 of the Indiart Electricity
G Act. Mr. Gupta has contended that any proposal of correctness of one
meter by another meter should not be permitted until the co:rrectness of
the earlier meter installed is finally decided by Electrical Inspector as
incorrect. Mr. Gupta has contended that any liberty granted to the Board
to continue to dislodge and dislocate one meter after another meter
H arbitrarily, whimsically and without any reason and without the concur-
-
BEL WAL SPINNING MILLS LID. v. U.P. STATE ELCIRICITY BOARD [G.N. RAY, J.) 211
rence of the consumer will be loaded with the potentiality of grave mischief A
and high handedness at the hands of the Electricity Board and such action
is bound to seriously impair the rule of law between the parties which is
so delicately maintained by the different parts of Section 26 of the Indian
Electricity Act.
According to Mr. Gupta the different parts of Section 26 of the Act B
only manifest that the original correct meter once duly installed with the
concurrence of concerned parties, acquires a sacrosanct status. After the
installation, neither party has the right to take off or remove or replace the
meter. Sub-section ( 4) of Section 26 permits the originally installed correct
meter to be taken off and removed by the Electricity Board, if at all for C
the purpose of inspecting ·and testing such removal is necessary. There is
no unlimited liberty granted to the Electricity Board or the licensee to take
off and remove the originally installed meter and replace the same by
another meter by treating such other meter as correct. Sub-section ( 6) of
Section 26 of the Electricity Act requires that save as estimated by the
Electrical Inspector for a period not exceeding six months, the register of D
the meter shall be conclusive proof of the amount of energy supplied to
the consumer. This limit of six months, according to Mr. Gupta, is to be
corelated with the primary rule contained in sub-section (1) of Section 26
of the Act, which requires that the amount of energy supplied shall be
ascertained by means of a correct meter.
E
Mr. Gupta has submitted that Section 21 of the Indian Electricity Act
bars and disentitles the Board from prescribing any special form of appliance and it also indicates that the original correct meter cannot be
tinkered with. Regulation 21 (ii) of the Elec~ricity (Supply) Regulations
1984 also provides for a check meter only for checking the accuracy of the F
original meter. Sub-section (7) of Section 26 permits any other meter to be
placed upon the consumer's premises only in addition to and not in lieu of
or in replacement of the meter already placed upon the said premises in
pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act. If
the Board places in the consumer's premises a check meter and thereafter
finalises or regularises it so as to bid farewell to the original meter installed G
under sub-section (1) for purposes of ascertaining the ~ount of energy
supplied to the consumer, it must be held to be a breach of sub-section (7)
inasmuch as such placement is in lieu of i;nd not in place of the original
meter. Mr. Gupta has submitted that the check meter has only been placed
to check the original meter and such meter cannot directly dislodge and H
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A replace the said original meter and not indirectly allow to do so by means
of any process or formality of finalisation or regularisation or some other
such paper ritual.
Mr. Gupta has further contended that the law courts in India have
decided that a check meter can only be used for checking and not for the
B purposes of regular reading, billing etc. Even the impugned judgment had
disapproved of such action and quashed the check meter bills inter alia on
the finding that as the power to decide the dispute about the correctness
of the meter installed at the consumer's premises vests in Electrical Inspector under sub-section ( 6) of Section 26, it is not open to the Board to assign
C that power to itself. It may be open to the Board to install the check meter
to find out the correctness of the meter originally installed at the
. consumer's premises but it is not open to it to send bills on that basis for
the period of dispute. The Board's decision about the correctness of meter
is not binding on the consumer and what is binding on him is the decision
D of the Electrical Inspector under Sub-section ( 6) of Section 26. Under .
these circumstances, if the Board issues any additional bills for the disputed
period, it is not liable to be paid by the consumer. The consumer is
required to make payment provisionally, during the period of dispute, on
the same basis on which payment was being made before the dispute has
ansen.
E
Mr. Gupta has contended that not only a new correct meter cannot
be brought in but truly speaking, the old correct meter cannot be taken off
or removed or abandoned except under the provisions of Section 26( 6) of
the Electricity Act. Mr. Gup~a has also contended that although sub-secF tion (7) of Section 26 permits the Board to use, in addition to the meter
installed under sub-section (1), such other apparatus as it thinks fit for the
purpose of ascertaining the amount of energy supplied, under the second
proviso of the said sub-section, the Board has an obligation to keep also
such apparatus correct. Mr. Gupta has further contended that second
proviso to sub-section (7) of Section 26 also requires that the provisions of
G sub-section (4), (5) and (6) shall mutatis mutandis also apply to the said
additional apparatus as though it was the meter referred to under sub-section (1).