SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 53

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

l SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED AND ORS. OCTOBER 11, 2007 [S. B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ. ] Indian Electricity Act, 191O; Ss. 35 and 26/Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000; Ss.

14, 15, 61, 63 and 64/Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pe1formance and Standards-Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002: Electric energy recording meter-Replacement by an electronic meter by Licensee-Electric meter so replaced allegedly running faster-Challenge to-Dismissed by High Court-Letters Patent Appeal also dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Appellantconsumer did not object to change ofmeter and allowed respondent- Licensee to change his correct meter by another one which he admitted - -I ·was also correct-He, later, cannot contend that the meter does not record correct consumption ofelectricity-A policy decision for replacement ofoldelectric meters with the new electronic meters issued by Electricity Regulatory Commission in terms ofprovisions under 1948 Act to meet the requirement ofannual reservefund-S.

20 confers i power on Licensee to alter a meter which includes replacement of meter-There exists no power in any ofthe Statutes connected with electricity supply which prohibits the Licensee to replace one meter by another-Creative interpretation ofthe provisions ofthe Statute y demands that with advancement in science and technology, the Court shouldread the provision ofthe Statute in a manner so as to give effect thereto-Hence, Licensee hadnecessary authority to replace the meter in terms ofprovision u/s. 20 of 1910 Act-General Clauses Act- Statutory power--Exercise of-Jnte1pretation ofStatutes. ~ Words & Phrases: t 'Licensee '-Meaning of in the context ofSection 2(e) ofthe Electricity Act,, 1910. 'Board'-Meaning ofin the context ofDelhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001. meter for the purpose of recording of consumption of electrical energy was installed at the premises of the appellantconsumer. It was replaced by an electronic meter by respondent- Licensee.

The electronic meter when tested by the officials of the y respondent, 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 praying for order/direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus, thereby declaring the acts of the officials ofthe respondents as illegal and malafide in replacing the correct and working electricity meter of the petitioner by an electronic meter at his residence. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court. A letters patent appeal preferred thereagainst by the consumer was also dismissed by the >- High Court. Hence the present appeal.

Appellant-consumer contended that in the facts and under the circumstances ofthe case, since Indian Electricity Act, 2003 being not applicable, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment; that Rule 57 ofthe Indian Electricity Rules, ~ 1956 whereupon reliance was placed by the respondents in their counter affidavit is clearly inapplicable and thus reliance so placed by the High Court was wholly unwarranted; that the tariffframed y by Delhi Vidyut Board also did not confer any jurisdiction upon the respondents to remove the correct meter and replace the same by [ another meter; that the only provision which could have been taken ) recourse to for replacement ofa meter being Section 26 ofthe 1910 ' ~ Act and the same was not applicable in this case; that margin oferror •~ ¥ 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 ofthe Indian Electricity Rules, the appellant had a legal right to obtain a writ in the nature ofmandamus directing t SURESHJINDALv. BSESRAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 55 the respondents not to rely thereupon for the purpose ofcalculating the amount ofconsumption ofelectrical energy recorded therein; and that in any view ofthe matter, replacement ofthe 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.

Respondents-Licensee submitted that in terms of Section 20 ofthe 1910 Act, a general power has been conferred on the licensee 'I' to remove a correct meter and replace the same by another meter which records more accurately the actual consumption ofelectrical 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. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. Appellant did not object to the change ofthe meter. It proceeded on the basis that the change ofthe 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, does not lie in the mouth of the appellant now to turn round and contend that electronic meters do not record correct consumption ofelectrical 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 othenvise liable but it is another thing to say that it was legally impermissible. It is not, however denied or disputed that whether y 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 Delhi Electricity Act, 2000. (Para 38) [68-B-D] ~ 1. 2. IfSection 20 ofthe Indian Electricity Act, 1910 conferred a power which is not othenvise controlled by Section 26 thereof, the question of the respondent acting wholly without jurisdiction or arbitrarily would not arise. [Para 39) [68-E] ).. -- \ v ! 2. 1.

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 ofdefective meters etc. The said regulations admittedly were amended in 2003 providing for payment of compensation to consumers in case of repeated levy ofarrears for bills already paid. Ifthere had been any violation ofthe meter and billing regulation, the utilities could be imposed with penalties. It is at that stage, a policy decision was taken by the electricity Regulatory Commission 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 ofmeters which were carried out pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof. [Para 40] [68-H; 69-A-C] 2. 2. Under the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, the State had a role to play.

Its directions in 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. [Para 41] [69-F] 3. 1. Section 26 of the 1910 Act operates in different fields. It comes into being only when there exists a dispute. The dispute may be in regard to the'quantum ofthe amount required to be expended for removing the meter or the correctness ofthe meter. The dispute may also be, in the event, the meter is held to be not recording the consumption ofelectrical energy correctly, the amount to which the '( consumer would be liable to pay, in relation thereto. [Para 44) [70-E] 3. 2. Section 20 of 1910 Act operates in one field namely conferring a powerofentry on the licensee.

The provision empowers the licensee inter alia to alter a meter which would include ).. _ replacement ofa meter. It is an independent general provision. In absence ofany statutory provision, there exists no reason to put a restrictive meaning thereto. [Para 43) [70-A-B) SURESHJINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 57 3. 3. 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 as referred to which precludes or prohibits the licensee to replace one set of meter by another. Ifsuch 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 ofthe provisions ofthe 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.

(Para 43] [70-B-D] State ofMaharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Praful B. Desai & Anr. , (2003] 4 sec 601, relied on. 3. 4. 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 ofthe 1910 Act. [Para 46) [70-G-H] Belwal SpinningMills Ltd AndOrs. v. UP. State Electricity Board AndAnr. , [1997] 6 SCC 740, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE WRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4789 of 2007. . From the Judgment and Order dated 20. 2. 2006 ofthe High Comt of Delhi at New Delhi in L. P. A. No. 256 of 2006. Sanjay Parikh, Lalit Kumar, Anitha Shenoy, Nitin R, Jatin Sahni and A. N. Singh for the Appellant. A. Sharan, A. S. G. , Arnn Jaitely, R. Srivastava, Amit Kapur, Mansoor Ali, Vibha Datta Makhija, Sadhna Sandhu, D. S. Mahra and Suresh Chandra Tripathy for the Respondents. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 2.

Appellant is a consumer of electrical energy. Respondent is ( \ y licensee. A meter for the purpose ofrecording consumption ofelectrical energy was installed at his premise. It was replaced by an electronic meter. 3. The electronic meter was tested by the officials ofthe 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; "4. That the meter installed in the premises ofthe Petitioner was ''I' intact and OK and was recording the consumption as per Section 57 ofthe Electricity Supply Rules, 1956 and there was no percentage error in the recording ofthe consumption in the meter earlier installed by the agents ofthe Respondent in the premises ofthe Petitioner. 5.

That the Petitioner believing the intention ofthe Respondent has permitted the Respondent to install the meter oftheir own choice believing that the meter which was installed in the premises of the Petitioner is of approved design and specification ofISI and also in accordance with the rules and \. regulations under the Electricity Act, 2003. " In the writ petition, the following prayers were made by him: a. A writ, order or direction in the nature ofa writ ofmandamus, thereby declaring the acts ofthe officials ofthe Respondents as illegal and malafide in replacing the correct and working meter ofthe Petitioner by another meter in respect ofelectricity connection bearing K. No. 2540F320018 installed for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi. 'r b. A writ, order or direction in the nature ofa writ ofmandamus, 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 ofa writ ofmandamus thereby directing the Respondent to get the meter of the / SURESHJINDALv. BSESRAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 59 Petitioner tested as per rule 57 ofthe Electricity Supply Rules 1956 through an independent agency or in any other manner a'5 this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. d. A writ order or direction thereby directing the Respondent to calibrate, seal and install at the premises ofthe Petitioner, the electro mechanical energy meter oflSI make procured by the Petitioner in respect ofelectricity connection bearing K. No. 2540F320018 for 134, First Floor, Sunder Nagar, Delhi after replacing the existing meter. " 4. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge ofthe Delhi High Court by a judgment and Order dated 14. 12. 2005.

A letters patent appeal was preferred thereagainst and by reason ofthe 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 ofthe appeal, inter alia, would submit; (i) Respondent being a licensee governed by the Indian Electricity Act, 19IO (hereinafter referred as "19IO Act"); the provisions of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as "1948 Act") or the subsequent Acts namely Delhi Electricity Refonns Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "2000 Act") or Indian Electricity Act, 2003 being not applicable, the High Court committed a serious eiTor in passing the impugnedjudgment. (ii) Rule 57 ofthe 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 behalfwas wholly w1warranted.

(iii) The tariffframed 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 ~- \ ' the 2000 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The National Capital Territory ofDelhi in exercise ofits 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 detennining the terms and conditions on which such transfer or vesting shall take effect. 25. In the said Rules, "Board" has been defined to mean Delhi ,.

Vidyut Board constituted under Section 5 ofthe Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. Rule 2(f) defines "DISCOM 2" to mean "South-West Delhi J>, Electricity Distribution Company Limited", a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) with the principal object ofengagfug in the business of distribution and supply . of electricity in the area as specified in P&1 II of Schedule 'H'. 26. The term "transferee" has been defined in Rule 2(r) to mean 'GENCO', 'TRANSCO', 'DISCOMS' and 'PPCL', as the case may be, in whom the undertaking or undertakings or the assets, liabilities, p proceedings and personnel of the Board, as the case may be, are vested in terms ofthese 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 'A' (b) Generation Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'B'. (c) Transmission Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'C' ·I (d) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'D~ (e) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'E'. (t) Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'F'. (g) Holding Company with assets and liabilities as set out in Schedule }- 'G'. 28. Rule 5(1)(d) ofthe Rules provides that the undertaking forming part ofthe Distribution Undertaking as set out in Schedule 'D', 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) ofRule 5 provides for the consequences ofsuch transfers in the following terms : "Rule 5(2) On such transfer and vesting ofthe undertakings in terms of sub-rule (1), the respective transferee shall be responsible for all contracts, rights, deeds, schemes, bonds, agreements and other instrume~ts 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 ofthe transfer, in the same manner as the Boardwas liable immediately before the date ofthe transfer, and the same shall be in force and effect against or in favour ofthe respective transferee and may be enforced effectively as ifthe respective transferee had been a party thereto instead of the Board. " 30.

Rule 10 provides for the rights and powers ofthe transferees, sub-Rule (2) whereof reads as under : "Rule 10(2) Within sixty days ofthe effective date oftransfer, the DISCOMS shall apply to the Commission for the grant oflicence under the Act to undertake the business ofdistribution and retail supply of electricity in the. respective areas ofsupply as specified in Schedule 'H' :" 31. Indisputably, pursuant thereto and/or in furtherance thereof, ~ ) SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED 67 applications were made for grant oflicense 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 ofSection 61 ofthe 2000 Act known as The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Performance Standards- Metering and Billing) Regulations, 2002. .. , 33. Chapter 5 ofthe said Regulations provide for metering, laying .

, down that all installations subject to exemption shall be serviced with meter and all the requirements as laid down in Section 26 ofthe 2000 Act shall be complied with. 34. To complete the narration ofthe statutory Scheme, we may also notice that Delhi Electricity Supply Company undertaking framed conditions ofsupply 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 ofreplacing the existing meters with electronic meters, but, we are ofthe 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 Ors. v. State ofUP. and Anr. , [2003] 1 1 sec 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 ofsupply ofelectrical energy in the National Capital Territory ofDelhi 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 ofapplicability ofthe provisions ofthe 2003 Act and the regulations made thereunder, for the reason that regulations made under Section 50 ofthe 2003 Act came into force on and from 8. 4. 2007 and Section 55 thereofcame 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 tariffframed by the Delhi Vidyut Board. 38.

At the outset we have noticed that the appellant did not object to the change ofthe meter. It proceeded on the basis that the change of ;i.. the meter is permissible in law. He being allegedly unaware ofhis rights allowed the respondent to enter into his premises and change a correct "1 meter by another one which according to him is also correct. It, therefore, in our opinion does not lie in the mouth ofthe appellant now to tum 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 impem1issible.

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 ce11ificate granted in te1ms ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofmaking tariff, certain checks and balances were required to be made. The loopholes then existing in the matter oftransmission ofelectrical 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) ofthe 2003 Act. Regulations made in the year 2002 provided for detailed guidelines in regard to the SURESHJINDALv. BSESRAJDHANIPOWERLIMITED 69 procedures required to be followed by the utilities for providing new connections, replacement ofdefective meters etc. The said regulations admittedly were amended in 2003 providing for payment ofcompensation to consumers in case ofrepeated levy ofarrears for bills already paid. If there had been any violation ofthe meter and billing regulation, the utilities could be imposed with penalties. It is at that stage, a policy decision was taken for replacement ofold electromechanical meters with new electronic .. , meters as a part ofthe Scheme.

The Commission in its Order on Annual Revenue Requirement issued directions with regard to replacement of y meters which were carried out pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, which reads as under: "Replacement ofmeters is the responsibility ofthe DISCOMs and the DISCOMs have submitted details of the meter replacement programme to the Commission, the Commission would like to infom1 the objector that the old electromechanical meters are subject to mechanical wear and tear and tend to record lower conswnption over a period of time. Moreover, these meters ar~ / also more susceptible to tamper. The replacement ofsuch meters -" with electronic meters will enable the utility to record the consumption more accurately as well as reduce the chances of tampe1ing. The DISCOMs have submitted that the existing meters are being replaced by the electronic meters which is a good step. " 41. Under the 1948 Act, the State had a role to play.

Its directions in 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 'f r make tariffand 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 ofmeter by the licensee is contained in Section 20 ofthe 1910 Act or not. Even ifa harmonious construction . _ ( is given to the Scheme ofthe 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 ofany 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 ~hich 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 ofmeter by another. Ifsuch a provision is read into the statute, the same would come in the way ofgiving effect to the benefits ofnew 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 ofMaharashtra & Anr. v. Dr. Praful B. Desai & Anr. , [2003] 4 sec 6011 44. Section 26 ofthe Act operates in different fields. It comes into being only when there exists a dispute.

The dispute may be in regard to the quantum ofthe 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 ofelectrical 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 ofthe Electrical Inspector is final and binding on the parties. '46. It is correct that the matter at the relevant point oftime was not covered by any statutory regulations, but even otherwise, the respondent had the said authority under Section 20 ofthe 1910 Act. 47.

Construction of Section 20 vis-a-vis Section 26 of the 1910 j SURESH JINDAL v. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED 71 Act came up for consideration before this Court in Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd And Ors. v. UP. State Electricity Board AndAnr. , [1997] 6 SCC 740, wherein a Division Bench ofthis Court clearly opined; "37. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances ofthe 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 ofthe Electricity Act authorises the licensee to enter the premises ofthe consumer to remove fittings and other apparatus installed by the licensee. y Clause (a) ofsub-section (1) ofSection 20 authorises the licensee to enter the premises ofthe consumer for "inspecting, testing, repairing or altering the electric supply lines, meters, fittings, works and apparatus for the supply ofenergy belonging to the licensee".

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 adjudication ofcorrectness of the meter and other apparatus by the Electrical Inspector on reference under Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act. But such power flows from the statutory duties and functions ofthe licensee to maintain the correct meter for recording the quantum ofelectricity supplied to the consumer. Such duty to ensure maintenance of correct meter in the premises ofthe consumer has been indicated in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 26. The power ofremoving 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 ofthe meter has been referred to the Electrical Inspector under sub-section (6) ofSection 26.

A licensee is authorised under sub-section (7) of Section 26 to place, in addition to the meter installed in the premises ofthe consumer as referred to in sub-section (I) of Section 26, other meter or 0 apparatus as the licensee deems fit for the purpose ofrecording or regulating the amount ofenergy supplied to the consumer. Such power also does not depend on the existence ofany dispute as to the correctness ofthe meter installed. " \ t [2007] 11 S. C. R. 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, howeve:r, 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 ofthe opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. 'There shall be no order as to costs. S. K. S. Appeal dismissed. --\.