IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.4037 of 2003 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Modern Boiler & Raw Rice Mill, reptd., by its Managing Partner- Sri I.Srinivasa Rao, Akividu, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And Transmission Corporation of A.P., Limited, (AP TRANSCO), reptd., by its Chief Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Duba V.Nagarjuna Babu. Counsel for the respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Proceedings No.SE/O/ELR/AAE/T2/F.DOC/D.No.642/03, dated 29-1- 2003, of respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.63,067/- was assessed as the value of energy charges not recorded by the meter bearing Service Connection No.1313, Category-III, for the period from 19-8-1995 to 7-2-1996. The petitioner is a LT Industrial Consumer of the respondents. On the basis the inspection of the petitioner’s meter, it was allegedly found that the meter was not functioning properly. Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued on 23-4-1999 proposing to recover Rs.65,148/-. The petitioner filed its objections and after considering the same, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order assessing Rs.63,067/- towards back billing. At the hearing, Sri Duba V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (for short “the Act”), which was in force at the relevant time, the Electrical Inspector alone had jurisdiction to decide the meter disputes. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court i n Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Basantibai[1] and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Klayman Proccelains Limited Vs. Superintending Engineer[2]. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under the above mentioned provision if the consumer disputed the correctness of the meter, he should have referred the dispute to the Electrical Inspector and as no dispute was raised by the petitioner, there was no need to refer the dispute under Section 26(6) of the Act. Sub-Section (6) of Section 26 of the Act 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”. From the above reproduced provision, it is clear that where any difference or dispute arises as to the correctness of the meter, such a dispute shall be decided upon an application of either party by an Electrical Inspector. In the instant case, it is the respondents, who disputed the correctness of the meter by treating it as defective. Therefore, it is for the respondents to have approached the Electrical Inspector by giving advance notice to the petitioner as provided under the proviso to sub-Section (6) of Section 26 of the Act. This view of mine clearly derives support from the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and referred to supra. As, at the relevant point of time, the respondents had no jurisdiction to decide the meter dispute, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from taking appropriate steps for getting the dispute decided by the Electrical Inspector in accordance with Section 26(6) of the Act. ---------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:02-7-2010 MNR [1]) AIR 1988 SC 71 [2]) 2001 (5) ALT 274 (FB)