http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4789 of 2007

PETITIONER:

Suresh Jindal

RESPONDENT:

BSES Rajdhani Power Limited & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/10/2007

BENCH:

S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14308/2006]

S.B. SINHA, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is a consumer of electrical energy. Respondent is a

licensee. A meter for the purpose of recording consumption of electrical

energy was installed at his premise. It was replaced by an electronic meter.

3. The electronic meter was tested by the officials of the respondent and

it was found that the same was running fast by about +1.79% which is said

to be beyond the BIS standard, as the meter installed in the premises was of

Class-I category. He filed a writ petition before the High Court inter alia

contending;

\0234. That the meter installed in the premises of the Petitioner

was intact and OK and was recording the consumption as

per Section 57 of the Electricity Supply Rules, 1956 and

there was no percentage error in the recording of the

consumption in the meter earlier installed by the agents

of the Respondent in the premises of the Petitioner.

5. That the Petitioner believing the intention of the

Respondent has permitted the Respondent to install the

meter of their own choice believing that the meter which

was installed in the premises of the Petitioner is of

approved design and specification of ISI and also in

accordance with the rules and regulations under the

Electricity Act, 2003.\024

In the writ petition, the following prayers were made by him :

a. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of

mandamus, thereby declaring the acts of the officials

of the Respondents as illegal and malafide in

replacing the correct and working meter of the

Petitioner by another meter in respect of electricity

connection bearing K.No.2540F320018 installed for

134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi.

b. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of

mandamus, thereby quashing the meter testing report

prepared on 03/03/2005 in respect of electricity

connection bearing K.No. 2540F320018 installed for

134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi.

c. A writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of

mandamus thereby directing the Respondent to get the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9

meter of the Petitioner tested as per rule 57 of the

Electricity Supply Rules 1956 through an independent

agency or in any other manner as this Hon\022ble Court

deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

d. A writ order or direction thereby directing the

Respondent to calibrate, seal and install at the

premises of the Petitioner, the electro mechanical

energy meter of ISI make procured by the Petitioner

in respect of electricity connection bearing K.No.

2540F320018 for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar,

Delhi after replacing the existing meter.\024

4. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi

High Court by a judgment and Order dated 14.12.2005. A letters patent

appeal was preferred thereagainst and by reason of the impugned judgment,

the same has been dismissed. Appellant is, thus, before us.

5. Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant in support of the appeal, inter alia, would submit;

(i) Respondent being a licensee governed by the Indian Electricity Act,

1910 (hereinafter referred as \0231910 Act\024); the provisions of

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as \0231948 Act\024) or

the subsequent Acts namely Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000

(hereinafter referred to as \0232000 Act\024) or Indian Electricity Act, 2003

being not applicable, the High Court committed a serious error in

passing the impugned judgment.

(ii) Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 whereupon reliance was

placed by the respondents in their counter affidavit is clearly

inapplicable and thus reliance placed thereupon by the High Court in

this behalf was wholly unwarranted.

(iii) The tariff framed by Delhi Vidyut Board also did not confer any

jurisdiction upon the respondents to remove the correct meter and

replace the same by another correct meter.

(iv) The only provision which could have been taken recourse to for

replacement of a meter being Section 26 of the 1910 Act and the same

being not applicable in this case, the impugned Judgment cannot be

sustained.

(v) Margin of error in the meter being 1.79% in one case and 3.79% in the

other which is in excess of 1 per cent of error provided for in the

proviso appended to Rule 57 of the Indian Electricity Rules, the

appellant had a legal right to obtain a writ of or in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents not to rely thereupon for the

purpose of calculating the amount of consumption of electrical energy

recorded therein.

(vi) In any view of the matter, replacement of the meter having taken

place prior to coming into force of the 2003 Act and the regulations

framed thereunder, the High Court was wholly incorrect in arriving at

its findings.

6. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, on the other hand, would principally rely upon Section 20

of the 1910 Act to submit that by reason thereof a general power has been

conferred on the licensee to remove a correct meter and replace the same by

another meter which records more accurately the actual consumption of

electrical energy having regard to the development of technology and thus

such an action, being de-hors provisions of Section 26 of the Act, would not

be controlled thereby. Appellant being a consumer of electrical energy from

Delhi Vidyut Board which was a State Electricity Board within the meaning

of 1948 Act and the respondent being its successor in terms of 2000 Act and

2003 Act, the impugned judgment is unassailable.

7. The 1910 Act was enacted on 18th March, 1910.

8. The said Act regulated the terms and conditions of supply of electrical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9

energy to the consumers. Licensees in those days used to be private

companies. Actual terms of the contract for supply of electrical energy by

the licensees to its consumers were governed by the terms and conditions of

contract entered into by and between the parties thereto. The said Act

provide for powers and obligations of the licensee on the one hand as also

the rights and obligations on the part of the consumers on the other. By

reason thereof, licensees under the said Act being public utility concerns

were bound thereby. It could exercise the statutory powers conferred upon

it, which was otherwise not available under the common law or the terms of

the contract entered into by and between the parties.

9. Section 20 of the Act confers power on the licensee to enter into the

premises, inter alia, for the purpose of inspecting, testing, repairing or

altering meters instituted in the premises of the consumers. The said

provision ex-facie is not controlled by any other provision thereto. Section

21 of the Act empowers a licensee to prescribe any form of appliance in

utilising energy supplied by him. All kind of utilisation of appliances is

governed by the said provisions. The said provision has nothing to do with

installation or testing or replacing any meter. Section 26 ensures installation

of correct meter so that the consumption of electrical energy may be

recorded. A meter can be installed either by the licensee or by the

consumer. An obligation, thus, to keep the meter correct will be either on

the licensee or the consumer, as the case may be. Sub-section (4) of Section

26 empowers the licensee to have access for the purpose of inspecting and

testing the meters and for the said purpose the same could be taken off or

removed.

10. In case however of any dispute or difference and in the event the

meter installed in the premises of the consumer is found to be not correct, in

regard to the quantum amount of reasonable expenses for the purpose of

taking off or removal of the meter, the Electrical Inspector would be the sole

authority to determine the same. The Electrical Inspector as a statutory

authority was also empowered to enter into and determine the disputes and

differences between the parties not only in regard to the correctness of the

meter but also quantify the amount payable by the consumer to the licensee

if he comes to the opinion that the meter has ceased to be correct subject of

course to the condition that the same would not exceed the period of six

months.

11. The principal question which arises for our consideration is as to

whether the power conferred upon the licensee under Section 20 of the Act

is controlled by Section 26 thereof. We would deal with the said question a

little later.

12. We may now have a quick look at the provisions of the other statutes.

The provisions of 1948 Act, which is a post-independence Act, cast a duty

on the State to constitute a Board for the purpose of generation,

transmission, distribution and supply of electrical energy. It is a body

corporate and can sue and be sued in its own name. Section 26 of the 1948

Act provides for conferment of powers and obligations of the licensees in

the Board as provided for under the 1910 Act wherefor a legal fiction has

been raised. The proviso appended to Section 26 of 1948 Act reads as

under:-

\023Provided that nothing in sections 3 to 11, sub-sections (2)

and (3) of section 21 and section 22, sub-section (2) of

Section 22A and sections 23 and 27 of that Act or in

clauses 1 to V, clause VII and clauses IX to XII of the

Schedule to that Act relating to the duties and obligations

of a licensee shall apply to the Board:\024

13. Section 20 of the 1910 Act was, therefore, made operative under the

1948 Act so far as the Board is concerned and thus the said power was

exercisable by it. Rules were made in terms of Section 37 of the 1910 Act

only in the year 1957. Rule 57(1) of the Rules reads as under:-

\02357(1) Any meter or maximum demand indicator or

other apparatus placed upon a consumer\022s premises in

accordance with section 26 shall be of appropriate

capacity and shall be deemed to be correct if its limits

of error are within the limits specified in the relevant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9

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 up to full load:\024

14. Although reliance has been placed by the respondents in their counter

affidavit on the said rule, ex-facie the same is not very relevant for our

purpose. We would, however, deal with the contention of Mr. Parikh with

regard to the construction of the said provision at a later stage.

15. The Parliament enacted Electricity Regulatory Commission Act in the

year 1998 wherewith we are not concerned. It may however be noticed that

the National Capital Territory of Delhi enacted the Delhi Electricity Reforms

Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as \0232000 Act\024).

16. Section 2(e) thereof defines \023licence\024 to mean a licence granted under

the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

17. Section 14 provides for re-organisation of electricity industries; sub-

section (1) whereof reads as under:-

\023Sec. 14(1) The Government may, as soon as may be

after the commencement of this Act, cause one or more

companies to be incorporated and set up under the

provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) for

the purpose of generation, transmission or distribution

of electricity, including companies engaged in more

than one of the said activities, in the National Capital

Territory of Delhi and may transfer the existing

generating stations or the transmission system or

distribution system, or any part of the transmission

system or distribution system, to such company or

companies.\024

Sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section 14 of the said Act read as under :

Sec. 14(3) The companies incorporated and set up

under sub-section (1) shall undertake the functions

specified in this section and such other functions as

may be assigned to them by the Government.

Sec. 14(6) The Government may convert the companies

set up under this Act to joint venture companies

through a process of disinvestment, in accordance with

the transfer scheme prepared under the provisions of

this Act.

18. Section 15 provides for reorganisation of Delhi Vidyut Board and

transfer of properties, functions and duties thereof.

19. Delhi Vidyut Board was constituted by the National Capital Territory

of Delhi in terms of the provisions of 1948 Act.

20. By reason of sub-section (1) of Section 15 all the powers conferred

upon the Companies as had been existing in the Boards under Section 26 of

the 1948 Act were saved.

21. By reason of Section 63, the provisions thereof were to prevail over

the provisions of 1910 Act and 1948 Act in regard to the matters which were

inconsistent therewith or contrary thereto. Sub-section (3) of Section 63

provides that upon establishment of the Commission, the provisions of the

1910 Act and 1948 Act were to be read subject to the modifications and

reservations contained therein, the relevant clauses whereof are as under:-

\023(i) All references to State Electricity Board in the

Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) in so far as the

National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned shall be

read as references to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory

Commission or the companies established under section

14 or other licensees or wherever it relates to general

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9

policy matters, to the Government.

(ii) In respect of matters provided in sections 3 to 11, 28,

36(2), 49A, 50 and 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910

(9 of 1910), to the extent this Act has made specific

provisions, the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act,

1910 (9 of 1910) shall not apply in the National Capital

Territory of Delhi.\024

So far as 1948 Act is concerned, it is provided :

\023(v) All references to State Electricity Board in the

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948) in so far as

the National Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned shall

be read as references to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory

Commission or the companies established under section

14 or other licensees or where it relates to general policy

matters, to the Government.

(vi) In respect of matters provided in sections 5 to 18, 19,

20, 23 to 27, 37, 40 to 45, 46 to 54, 56 to 69, 72 and 75 to

83 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of 1948), to

the extent this Act has made specific provisions, the

provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (54 of

1948) shall not apply in the National Capital Territory of

Delhi.\024

22. Section 26 of the 1948 Act therefore, would not apply only when

there exist any corresponding provision in the 2000 Act. It is not disputed

that no such provision is in existence. If there does not exist any provision

contrary to or inconsistent with Section 26 of the Act, the same would,

indisputably, continue to apply.

23. Section 64 of the said Act provides for the saving clause.

24. We may now notice constitution of various entities in terms of the

2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The National Capital Territory

of Delhi in exercise of its power conferred by Section 60 read with Sections

15 and 16 of 2000 Act made Rules known as Delhi Electricity Reform

(Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. The said Rules are statutory in nature.

They provide for transfer and vesting of assets, liabilities, proceedings and

personnel of Delhi Vidyut Board in the successor entities and for

determining the terms and conditions on which such transfer or vesting shall

take effect.

25. In the said Rules, \023Board\024 has been defined to mean Delhi Vidyut

Board constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

Rule 2(f) defines \023DISCOM 2\024 to mean \023South-West Delhi Electricity

Distribution Company Limited\024, a company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) with the principal object of engaging in

the business of distribution and supply of electricity in the area as specified

in Part II of Schedule \021H\022.

26. The term \023transferee\024 has been defined in Rule 2(r) to mean

\021GENCO\022, \021TRANSCO\022, \021DISCOMS\022 and \021PPCL\022, as the case may be, in

whom the undertaking or undertakings or the assets, liabilities, proceedings

and personnel of the Board, as the case may be, are vested in terms of these

rules and shall include the holding company;

27. Rule 4(1) provides that assets, liabilities and proceedings transferred

to the government under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 shall stand classified as under:

(a) Rights and interests in Pragati Power Project as set out in Schedule \021A\022

(b) Generation Undertaking as set out in Schedule \021B\022.

(c) Transmission Undertaking as set out in Schedule \021C\022

(d) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule \021D\022

(e) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule \021E\022.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9

(f) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule \021F\022.

(g) Holding Company with assets and liabilities as set out in Schedule \021G\022.

28. Rule 5(1)(d) of the Rules provides that the undertaking forming part

of the Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule \021D\022, shall stand

transferred to and vest in the DISCOM 1, on and from the date of the

transfer appointed for the said purpose.

29. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 5 provides for the consequences of such

transfers in the following terms :

\023Rule 5(2) On such transfer and vesting of the

undertakings in terms of sub-rule (1), the respective

transferee shall be responsible for all contracts, rights,

deeds, schemes, bonds, agreements and other instruments

of whatever nature, relating to the respective undertaking

and assets and liabilities transferred to it, to which the

Board was a party, subsisting or having effect on the date

of the transfer, in the same manner as the Board was

liable immediately before the date of the transfer, and the

same shall be in force and effect against or in favour of

the respective transferee and may be enforced effectively

as if the respective transferee had been a party thereto

instead of the Board.\024

30. Rule 10 provides for the rights and powers of the transferees, sub-

Rule (2) whereof reads as under :

\023Rule 10(2) Within sixty days of the effective date of

transfer, the DISCOMS shall apply to the Commission for

the grant of licence under the Act to undertake the business

of distribution and retail supply of electricity in the

respective areas of supply as specified in Schedule \021H\022 :\024

31. Indisputably, pursuant thereto and/or in furtherance thereof,

applications were made for grant of license by the first respondent herein

and such license have since been granted in its favour by the Commissioner.

32. We may also notice that regulations have been framed in terms of

Section 61 of the 2000 Act known as The Delhi Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Performance Standards \026 Metering and Billing) Regulations,

2002.

33. Chapter 5 of the said Regulations provide for metering, laying down

that all installations subject to exemption shall be serviced with a meter and

all the requirements as laid down in Section 26 of the 2000 Act shall be

complied with.

34. To complete the narration of the statutory Scheme, we may also notice

that Delhi Electricity Supply Company undertaking framed conditions of

supply whereupon strong reliance has been placed by the High Court in

arriving at its finding. But, we may ignore the same inasmuch as the same

are not statutory in nature.

35. Before embarking on other questions raised at the Bar, we would like

to place on record that the High Court had placed strong reliance on the

rationale of replacing the existing meters with electronic meters, but, we are

of the opinion that the same is not at all relevant as in the event it is held that

the respondent had no authority to replace the existing meters with electronic

meters, rationale or other justifications in support thereof would not legalise

an illegal act.

[See Hindustan Times and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. [(2003) 1

SCC 591) Para 30].

36. We have referred to at some details the statutory scheme only for the

purpose of showing that there had all along been a continuity in the matter of

supply of electrical energy in the National Capital Territory of Delhi either

by a private company or by a State Electricity Board, as the case may be.

We, at this stage, make it clear that we do not intend to go into the question

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9

of applicability of the provisions of the 2003 Act and the regulations made

thereunder, for the reason that regulations made under Section 50 of the

2003 Act came into force on and from 8.4.2007 and Section 55 thereof came

into force on 10.3.2006 and, thus, the said Act was not in force at the

relevant time.

37. Our attention has also been drawn to Section 49 of the 1948 Act and

the regulations and the tariff framed by the Delhi Vidyut Board.

38. At the outset we have noticed that the appellant did not object to the

change of the meter. It proceeded on the basis that the change of the meter

is permissible in law. He being allegedly unaware of his rights allowed the

respondent to enter into his premises and change a correct meter by another

one which according to him is also correct. It, therefore, in our opinion does

not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to turn round and contend that

electronic meters do not record correct consumption of electrical energy. It

is one thing to say that electronic meters when tested do not register the

actual consumption, as a result whereof, the consumer would have to pay the

energy charges more than he is otherwise liable but it is another thing to say

that it was legally impermissible. It is not, however denied or disputed that

whether meter is installed by the licensee or by the consumer himself, the

same must have the requisite certificate granted in terms of the regulations,

the provisions wherefor have been made in the regulations made under the

2000 Act.

39. If Section 20 of the 1910 Act conferred a power which is not

otherwise controlled by Section 26 thereof, the question of the respondent

acting wholly without jurisdiction or arbitrarily would not arise.

Indisputably, after the Electricity Regulatory Commission came into being,

it issued certain directions. It had to make tariff. For the purpose of making

tariff, certain checks and balances were required to be made. The loopholes

then existing in the matter of transmission of electrical energy which

resulted in a huge transmission loss was to be taken care of. Therefore, a

direction was issued by the Commission that all the existing meters should

be replaced by electronic meters. We do not see any illegality therein.

40. Various steps had been taken by the respondent No. 2 to resolve the

grievances of the consumers. Grievance Redressal Forum was established in

terms of Section 42(5) of the 2003 Act. Regulations made in the year 2002

provided for detailed guidelines in regard to the procedures required to be

followed by the utilities for providing new connections, replacement of

defective meters etc. The said regulations admittedly were amended in 2003

providing for payment of compensation to consumers in case of repeated

levy of arrears for bills already paid. If there had been any violation of the

meter and billing regulation, the utilities could be imposed with penalties. It

is at that stage, a policy decision was taken for replacement of old

electromechanical meters with new electronic meters as a part of the

Scheme. The Commission in its Order on Annual Revenue Requirement

issued directions with regard to replacement of meters which were carried

out pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, which reads as under :

\023Replacement of meters is the responsibility of the

DISCOMs and the DISCOMs have submitted details of

the meter replacement programme to the Commission,

the Commission would like to inform the objector that

the old electromechanical meters are subject to

mechanical wear and tear and tend to record lower

consumption over a period of time. Moreover, these

meters are also more susceptible to tamper. The

replacement of such meters with electronic meters will

enable the utility to record the consumption more

accurately as well as reduce the chances of tampering.

The DISCOMs have submitted that the existing meters

are being replaced by the electronic meters which is a

good step.\024

41. Under the 1948 Act, the State had a role to play. Its directions in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9

relation to the policy matters were binding on the State Electricity Boards.

Such a power continued to be operative. If, therefore, the Electricity

Regulatory Commission which was an independent body could make tariff

and for that purpose had the statutory authority to issue certain directions, no

exception thereto can be taken.

42. We, therefore, are required to consider as to whether the authority to

make such replacement of meter by the licensee is contained in Section 20 of

the 1910 Act or not. Even if a harmonious construction is given to the

Scheme of the Indian Electricity Act as was submitted by Mr. Parikh, we do

not see as to how Section 26 would govern Section 20 of the 1910 Act.

43. Section 20 operate in one field namely conferring a power of entry on

the licensee. The said provision empowers the licensee inter alia to alter a

meter which would include replacement of a meter. It is an independent

general provision. In absence of any statutory provision, we do not see any

reason to put a restrictive meaning thereto. Even under the General Clauses

Act, a statutory authority while exercising statutory power may do all things

which are necessary for giving effect thereto. There does not exist any

provision in any of the statutes referred to hereinbefore which precludes or

prohibits the licensee to replace one set of meter by another. If such a

provision is read into the statute, the same would come in the way of giving

effect to the benefits of new technological development. Creative

interpretation of the provisions of the statute demands that with the advance

in science and technology, the Court should read the provisions of a statute

in such a manner so as to give effect thereto.

[See State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Praful B. Desai & Anr.

(2003) 4 SCC 601]

44. Section 26 of the Act operates in different fields. It comes into being

only when there exists a dispute. The dispute may be in regard to the

quantum of the amount required to be expended for removing the meter or

the correctness of the meter. The dispute may also be, in the event, the

meter is held to be not recording the consumption of electrical energy

correctly, the amount to which the consumer would be liable to pay, in

relation thereo.

45. Electrical Inspector acts as a statutory authority. He has been

conferred with a quasi-judicial power to determine the disputes of particular

kinds. His decision thereupon is final and conclusive. The correctness of

such decision can be questioned only before a superior court of law. Subject

of course to a decision of a superior court, the decision of the Electrical

Inspector is final and binding on the parties.

46. It is correct that the matter at the relevant point of time was not

covered by any statutory regulations, but even otherwise, the respondent had

the said authority under Section 20 of the 1910 Act.

47. Construction of Section 20 vis-`-vis Section 26 of the 1910 Act came

up for consideration before this Court in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. And

Others Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board And Another [(1997) 6 SCC 740],

wherein a Division Bench of this Court clearly opined;

\02337. After giving our careful consideration to the facts

and circumstances of the cases in these appeals and the

submissions made by Mr. Gupta, Mr. Sen and Mr.

Andhyarujina, the learned Solicitor General, it appears to

us that Section 20 of the Electricity Act authorises the

licensee to enter the premises of the consumer to remove

fittings and other apparatus installed by the licensee.

Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 20 authorises the

licensee to enter the premises of the consumer for

\023inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electric

supply lines, meters, fittings, works and apparatus for the

supply of energy belonging to the licensee\024. The

licensee, therefore, cannot only enter the premises of the

consumer for inspecting, testing etc. but the licensee can

also alter the meter whenever such alteration is needed.

Such power under Section 20 does not depend on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9

adjudication of correctness of the meter and other

apparatus by the Electrical 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 supplied to the consumer. Such

duty to ensure maintenance of correct meter in the

premises of the consumer has been indicated in sub-

section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 26. The power

of removing the meter under Section 20, however, is

circumscribed by the proviso to sub-section (4) of

Section 26 only when the dispute as to the functioning of

the meter has been referred to the Electrical Inspector

under sub-section (6) of Section 26. A licensee is

authorised under sub-section (7) of Section 26 to place,

in addition to the meter installed in the premises of the

consumer as referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 26,

other meter or apparatus as the licensee deems fit for the

purpose of recording or regulating the amount of energy

supplied to the consumer. Such power also does not

depend on the existence of any dispute as to the

correctness of the meter installed.\024

48. Reliance on the said decision has also been placed by the High Court.

Mr. Parikh, however, would submit that the High Court failed to notice

paragraph 48 of the said decision wherein it was laid down that Section

26(6) would apply where the meter is not correct and the power to remove

the meter could be exercised only in such a situation and not otherwise.

49. We may, however, notice that the observations made in paragraph 48

were made while considering the question as to whether the decision in

terms of sub-section (6) of Section 26 should be limited to a statutory period

or not. Observations in paragraph 48 of the said decision having been made

in the aforementioned context, the same cannot be said to have any

application whatsoever in the instant case.

50. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that there is

no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order

as to costs.