Defective meter assessment requires statutory procedure, hearing, and comparable prior-period estimation; unilateral revised billing fails.

Electricity charges may be demanded even after more than three years from consumption because liability becomes due when a valid bill is raised, not at the moment of use. A revised assessment for a defective meter must, however, follow the statutory procedure: where meter correctness is disputed, the matter must be referred to the Electrical Inspector, the affected consumer must be heard, and the supplier cannot unilaterally revise the bill. Estimation for the defective period must be made by reference to the corresponding earlier comparable period, not a later period. On these grounds, the revised demand was unsustainable and relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether electricity charges could be demanded after a lapse of more than three years from consumption, (ii) whether a revised assessment based on a defective meter could be made without reference to the Electrical Inspector and without affording hearing, and (iii) whether the revised consumption for the defective period had to be determined by reference to the corresponding earlier period rather than a later period.

Issue (i): Whether electricity charges could be demanded after a lapse of more than three years from consumption.

Analysis: The liability to pay electricity charges arises when the consumption is quantified and a valid bill is raised. The expression "due" in the relevant provisions means due and payable after issuance of the bill, not merely upon consumption of electricity. The limitation for recovery proceedings therefore begins from the date the bill becomes due and payable, and not from the date of consumption.

Conclusion: The authority could issue a bill even after three years from consumption, and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a revised assessment based on a defective meter could be made without reference to the Electrical Inspector and without affording hearing.

Analysis: Where there is a dispute about the correctness of a meter, the statutory scheme requires determination by the Electrical Inspector. If the meter is found defective, the estimate of consumption for the defective period can be made only in the manner authorised by the provision, and the affected party must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A unilateral revision by the supplier is not permissible.

Conclusion: The revised assessment made without following the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice was invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether the revised consumption for the defective period had to be determined by reference to the corresponding earlier period rather than a later period.

Analysis: The governing supply conditions required consumption during the defective period to be determined by reference to the previous comparable seasonal months. Estimation by comparing the disputed period with a subsequent year was contrary to the prescribed method and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The basis adopted for the revised bill was illegal.

Final Conclusion: The demand raised by the revised bill could not be sustained, and the writ petition was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for electricity charges may be raised after consumption, but a revised assessment for a defective meter must strictly follow the statutory procedure, including reference to the competent authority where required, observance of natural justice, and the prescribed method for estimating consumption.

---