(1.) Rule. The pleadings in this petition are complete. I have heard both the sides on merits at length. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of this petition finally.
(2.) The petitioner is running a factory at Junagadh and he has obtained electric connection and his consumer No. is 34101/58621/3. In the month of June, 1995 his old meter No. 6009189 was not working properly, and, therefore, on 21st June, 1995, the same was removed by the respondent and a new meter was installed in the place of old meter. According to the petitioner, the meter bearing No. 210134 was initially running very fast and it stopped running after 2 or 3 days. Therefore, for a Writ of Prohibition. by letter dated 21st June, 1995, he informed the respondent about the non-working of the meter. He had also sent a telegram. As per his claim, thereafter, on 27th July, 1995, the respondent removed the said meter and they installed a new meter.
(3.) On 13th February, 1996, the respondent informed the present petitioner that they want to check and test the meter which had stopped working in their laboratory at Sabarmati on 26th February, 1996 and requested the present petitioner to personally remain present at the time of said testing and checking. After the receipt of the said letter, the respondent informed them by his letter dated 23rd February, 1996, that there is a dispute regarding the said meter between him and the respondent, and, therefore, in view of sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, the said dispute should be referred by the respondent to the Electrical Inspector for his decision. The respondent did not accept his claim and they again asked him by letter dated 12th March, 1996 to remain present at Sabarmati laboratory on 18th March, 1996. In the meantime, the present petitioner himself had written a letter to the Electrical Inspector on 4-3-1996 submitting before him that there was dispute of the meter and that he was making a reference under sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1925.