ivil Miscellaneous 876 Petition No 1483 of 1987
In Civil Appeal No 573 of 1974
From the Judgment and order dated 941973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No 537 of 1970
PK Bajaj and SK Bagga for the Appellants
GS Chatterjee for the Respondents
The following order of the Court was delivered O R D E R The appeal was listed on 751987 before a bench consisting of Hon ble Mr Justice GL Oza and Hon ble Mr Justice KN Singh
The order recited Heard learned counsel for the respondent for sufficient time
No one appears for the appellants
The appeal is there fore dismissed in default This CMP was subsequently filed for recalling the order on the ground that the learned counsel was busy in the Delhi High Court on that date
It was further stated there But when after arguing two cases viz Company Petition No 110 of 1983 Ishwar Singh and others vs Dharam Singh and others final hearing and also other regular matter Suit No 49 of 1976 AC Tamra vs Mercury Production part heard in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi he meaning thereby the counsel for the appellant came to this Hon ble Court he came to know that this appeal had reached for hearing and was dismissed for default
This petition is signed not by the appellant but by Ms Bagga  Co Advocates for the appellant
It is verified by an affidavit of one PK Bajaj who state that he had been instructed to appear and argue the appeal
We are not sure as to who is making this application and whether the appellant is at all aware of these events
We find no justification for recalling the order on the plea that the counsel was busy somewhere
We were not inclined to act upon this kind of plea but on the basis that otherwise the appellant would suffer loss for no fault of his we have decided to hear the counsel
This practice should not be permitted in this Court any further
On perusal of the judgment of the High Court we find no merit in this appeal
By the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahabad writ petition was allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated the 25th October 1967 was quashed
877 The learned Judge has recorded that the respondents herein A have been held to be in possession in 1958 when the case started under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their date of occupation could not be later than 851958 with the result that the sjx years  period of limitation for a suit for their eviction under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act would start to run from 1st July 1958 and would expire on 30th June 1964 ie before the consolidation operations commenced
It was however contended on behalf of the appellants herein that there was a break in the possession of the respondents between 851958 and 2911960 but it was obvious that though the land was in the custody of the criminal court during that period the court must be deemed to have been holding possession on behalf of the person eventually found to be entitled to possession
We are of the opinion that the learned Judge was right in so holding
It was argued that there was no justification for treating the respondents to be entitled for possession of the land as they had occupied the land as mere trespassers but it was found that they had matured their title by adverse possession and there could be no warrant for denying them the status of rightful owners
The learned Judge did in the absence of any finding by a competent court negativing the respondents claim was of the opinion that they must be deemed to have been in persons entitled to possession of the disputed plots with the result that during the period between 851958 and 2911960 the criminal court must be held to have been in possession of the land
In that view of the metter there was no break in the possession of the respondents and they must be held to have been in continuous occupation at least from May 1958
In that view of the matter the other contentions urged before the High Court need not be noticed
In that view of the matter the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly
No one appears for the respondent
Therefore there is no question of costs
We however direct the Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the appellant directly at the costs of Advocate for the appellant
SL Appeals dismissed


Summary:
 An electricity meter with three phases installed by appellant No 1 for running an oil mill owned by the respondent was burnt
This was brought to the notice of appellant No 4
The respondent was directed to deposit a certain amount towards price of the meter and the meter connection charges which the respondent complied but the meter was not installed nor electric supply connection restored
The respondent requested appellant No 1 to restore electric supply by installation of another meter
However appellant No 1 sent a letter dated 431983 calling upon respondent to pay a sum of Rs1234610 as per the attached supplementary bill dated 231983 prepared on the basis that the meter was not recording actual energy supplied and consumed as it was running on two phases since one of the three phases was not working and threatening disconnection of supply without notice for non payment
The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the aforesaid letter and the supplementary bill
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that when the power connection was checked by an Assistant Engineer of the Board it was found that out of three phases one phase was not working and body seal of the meter was intact and therefore respondent was informed that the bill should be revised due to non working of one phase
It was alleged that respondent got the meter burnt since it did not burn ordinarily and the body seal of the meter was broken and the meter tampered with subsequently in order to avoid any liability
The High Court held that since the dispute was as to whether the meter was or was not correct it had to be decided by the Electrical 891 Inspector under sub section 6 of section 26 of the and so long as it was not decided appellant No 1 was not competent to prepare the supplementary bill or revised bill and quashed the letter dated 4383 and supplementary bill of 2383 as illegal
In the appeal by special leave it was urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondent committed fraud in breaking the body seal of the meter and running the same and as such the dispute did not attract the provisions of section 266 of the Act and the dispute could not be decided by the Electrical Inspector
Dismising the appeal  HELD Under sub section 6 of section 26 of the  it is only the dispute as to whether any meter referred to in sub section 1 isis not correct or it is inherently defective or faulty not recording correctly the electricity consumed which can be decided by the Electrical Inspector
896A B It is also evident from the said provision that till the decision is made no supplementary bill can be prepared by the Board estimating the energy supplied to the consumer as the Board is not empowered by the Act to do so
896C D A dispute regarding the commission of fraud in tampering with the meter and breaking the body seal is one outside the ambit of section 266 of the Act
An Electrical Inspector has no jurisdiction to decide such cases of fraud
895H 896A In the instant case it appears from the report of the Assistant Engineer of the State Electricity Board that one phase of the meter was not working at all so there is undoubtedly a dispute as to whether the meter in question is a correct one or a faulty one
This dispute therefore squarely falls within the provisions of the Act and it has been rightly held by the High Court that it is the Electrical Inspector who alone is empowered to decide the dispute
If the Electrical Inspector comes to the finding that the meter is faulty and due to some defect it has not registered the actual consumption of electrical energy then the Inspector will estimate the amount of energy consumed and will fix the amount to he paid in respect of such energy consumed within a period not exceeding six months
The appellant No 1 is not competent pending the determination of this dispute by the Electrical Inspector to issue the impugned notice threatening disconnection of supply of electricity 892 for non payment of supplementary bill prepared and sent by it
The A Board is also not competent to prepare and send a supplementary bill in respect of energy consumed by the respondent from the one phase which stopped functioning and did not record any consumption of energy
896B C 897F H 898A B It appears from the report of the Executive Engineer dated 17th February 1983 that the body seal of the meter was intact at the time of inspection
He only found that the meter which was installed was closed on one phase
Therefore there is no question of fraud in breaking the body seal of the meter
The story of so called fraud was an after thought and was not raised at any stage prior to the filing of the return in the High Court
894E F Gadag Betgiri Municipal Borough Gadag vs The Electrical Inspector Government Electrical Inspectorate Government of Mysore AIR and M P Electricity Board Jabalpur and another vs Chhanganlal AIR 1981 MP 170 approved
Abdul Razak vs MP Electricity Board 1982 MPLJ 22 overruled