Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned electricity billing when the consumer’s meter was suspected/ found defective. UPSEBinstalled an original meter, later doubted its accuracy, installed a “check meter,” and raised largesupplementary demands on the basis of the check meter without promptly referring the dispute to theElectrical Inspector. Eventually, the Electrical Inspector held both the original and check meters incorrect andestimated consumption for a statutory limited period under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. TheSupreme Court interpreted amended Section 26(6) to mean that, in the absence of fraud, for periods beyond thesix-month statutory estimation window, the meter register is conclusive proof of consumption; the Boardcannot raise retrospective revised demands for earlier periods contrary to the meter readings. The Court setaside the Allahabad High Court’s directions allowing rebilling over a longer period, while affirming theBombay High Court’s consumer-protective view.
Headnote
Section 26(6) (as amended): If a meter is found incorrect, the Electrical Inspector can estimate
consumption only for a period not exceeding six months prior to raising the dispute for
reference (depending on when the meter ceased to be correct, it may be less than six months).
For any period earlier than that statutory window, in absence of fraud, the meter register is
conclusive proof; the licensee cannot raise revised demands contrary to those readings.
A “check meter” has no special legal status preventing it from being treated as a replacement/altered
meter, but billing disputes still fall under Section 26(6) adjudication.
Disconnection cannot be used to enforce payment of amounts not legally “due” beyond what Section
26(6) permits (i.e., beyond the six-month estimate + otherwise as per conclusive meter record).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the U.P. State Electricity Board could issue revised bills based on a check meter without a proper reference to the Electrical Inspector.
Final Decision
Bombay matters (Civil Appeal Nos. 2538/1985, 1571/1987, 1255/1986): Dismissed(consumer-favourable High Court view upheld).Belwal/UPSEB matters (appeals arising from SLP 5262–64/1992): Allowed.
Allahabad HC judgment (19.2.1992) and interim order (10.3.1992) set aside.Belwal liable to pay:1. Electrical Inspector’s estimated amount for the statutory period under Section26(6) (max six months), and2. For earlier period, only as per meter/check meter readings (conclusive proofabsent fraud).UPSEB cannot raise contrary demands or disconnect supply for non-payment of amountsbeyond this legal liability.Board may bill for periods subsequent to the statutory period based on correct readings untilreplacement meter installed.
Law Points
- Electricity Act
- 1910
- Section 26
- correctness of meter
- Electrical Inspector's authority
- estimation of energy supplied
- interim orders
- jurisdiction of High Court
Case Details
1997 LawText (SC) (07) 54
Civil Appeal Nos. 1571 of 1987, 2538 of 1985 and 1255 of 1986
G.N. Ray J. , G.B. Pattanayak J.
Sunil Gupta, B. Sen, T.R. Andherujina
Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd.
U.P. State Electricity Board
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute regarding the correctness of electricity meter readings and billing by the U.P. State Electricity Board.
Filing Reason
The appellant filed writ petitions challenging the legality of the bills based on a check meter.
Previous Decisions
7 Feb 1986: UPSEB installs meter No. 5850497 at Belwal’s factory.
7 Sep 1987: Board issues notice doubting meter correctness; no immediate Section 26(6) reference by
Board.
30 Nov 1987: Board installs a check meter; bills raised on check meter basis (Dec 1987–May 1988).
May 1988: Large demand raised for May–Nov 1987 based on check meter; writ petitions filed in
Allahabad HC challenging demands/bills.
9 Jul 1988: Consumer applies for reference to Electrical Inspector.
Oct 10, 1990: Electrical Inspector finds both meters incorrect; estimates consumption for six
months (Dec 1989–May 1990) and directs replacement.
19 Feb 1992: Allahabad HC quashes check-meter-based demands but directs rebilling for 7.9.87–
10.10.90 on new meter basis + payment per Inspector’s estimate for six months.
10 Mar 1992: Interim order in la
Issues
1. Whether the electricity board can bill on the basis of a “check meter” and raise retrospective revised
demands when the original meter’s correctness is disputed.
2. Proper interpretation of Section 26(6) (post-1959 amendment):
Is the Electrical Inspector’s estimation power limited to six months?
Can the licensee nevertheless claim revised amounts for periods earlier than six months?
3. Whether disconnection under Section 24 can be used to enforce payment of such retrospective
demands.
Submissions/Arguments
Consumer (Belwal / others similarly placed):
Only one “correct meter” governs billing; check meter cannot be basis for regular billing until Section
26(6) dispute is decided.
After amendment, Inspector’s estimate is capped at six months; no revised claims beyond that.
High Court wrongly allowed rebilling for a longer past period.
Electricity Board / Licensees (UPSEB; MCGM in Bombay matters):
Board can install check meter and regularize billing; check meter can replace defective meter.
“Six months” limits only the Inspector’s estimation function, not the licensee’s substantive right to
claim correct charges for earlier periods.
Ratio Decidendi
Licensee has power under Section 20 and duties under Section 26 to inspect/repair/alter meters.
Once a dispute is raised under Section 26(6), adjudication is by Electrical Inspector; however, the
amended statute intentionally restricts retrospective estimation and settles earlier periods by
conclusiveness of meter register absent fraud.
The “conclusive proof” clause would be rendered meaningless if licensees could still reopen earlier
periods through revised bills.
Acts & Sections
- Electricity Act, 1910: Section 20, Section 21, Section 24, Section 26
- Indian Electricity Rules, 1956: Rule 57
