THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4039 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner is a L.T. consumer of electric power. The 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 01.02.2003, back billing a sum of Rs.35,198/-, for the period between 07.02.1998 and 06.10.1999. It was alleged that the meter fitted to S.C.No.35, Category-III, at Bhimavaram, was found to be defective in functioning and that the back billing, as provided for under Condition No.22.3.3.3 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply, is done. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue proceedings for back billing and in the event of the functioning of the meter found to be defective, the only alternative is to approach the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government of A.P. under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Klaiman Porcelains V. Superintending Engineer, A.P.S.E.B.[1]. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The question involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra. A Full Bench of this Court held that the 3rd respondent does not have the power to direct back billing, in exercise of power under Condition No.22.3.3.3 and that the only course for an aggrieved party, who doubts the accuracy of the readings in a meter, is to approach the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government of A.P. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.03.2010. GJ [1] 2000 (5) ALT 274