Mahinder Narain, J.

(1) The petitioner states that he is the owner of premises No. B-216. defense Colony, New Delhi. There is an electric meter installed at the said premises. It is stated in the petition that in the second week of July, 1986, the petitioner received a notice dated 7.7.1986 from respondent No. 2, Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 6,895.20 p., being an amount due on account of elecric charges for the period 11.9.1979 to 23.1.1985.

(2) It is the respondents contention that in that notice it was staled that the meter had remained bad and defective during the period 11.9.79 to 23.1.85.

(3) The petitioner says that he paid the amount of the bill under a threat disconnection.

(4) In this petition itself the petitioner points to a judgment of this Court reported as : AIR1987Delhi219 {H.D.Shourie v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi & another] In that case this Court held that disputes regarding the correctness of the meter have to be decided by an Electrical Inspector. It was also held in that case by this Court that in terms of Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, the maximum period for which the bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter is six months. The petitioner contends that in the instant case, the bill raised is for a period of six years.

(5) By virtue of the provisions of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, which relates to the mcters, it is apparent that "the electrical quantity contained in the supply, shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter". The licensee is clearly respondent No. 2. Delhi Electric Supply Undenaking, as it is they who supply the electricity in Delhi under the provisions of the India n Electricty Act, as a "licensee".

(6) The above stated narration is not disputed by Mr. M S..Datta, who appears for the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking.

Therefore, lay on respondent No. 2 to provide a correct meter.

(8) As far as two contentions of the petitioner are concerned, that is to say, the disputes relating to the correctness of the meter have to be referred to the Electrical Inspector, and that a bill which can be raised vis-a-vis the defective meter, is to be raised for a period of six months, are covered by the judgment of this Court in H.D. Shouris case.

(9) Mr. Datta says that an appeal has been admitted against the judgment in H.D. Shouris case, but adds that no stay order has been issued.

(10) In this view of the matter, the two contentions of the petitioner have to succeed.

(11) Another prayer which has been made, by the petitioner is that the amount of Rs. 6.895 20 p which has been paid by the petitioner under the threat of disconnection, should be ref unded to the petitioner along wiih interest thereon at 12% per annum.

(12) E only legal basis on which a demand for consumption of eleciricity can be raised by the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, is that the amount of electricity which is stated to be consumed in the bill, has been con- sumed in terms of the meisurements shown by the correct meter. Any demand for electricity which is made for conumption of electricity through a correct meter,.-has tobe paid. Necessarily any demand relating to consumption of electricity, the quantity of electricily consumed not having been determined through a correct meter, would not be proper demand at all, and the amount of such -demand cannot be recovered.

(13) Admittedly, in this cese the bill which was presented, was on assessment basis . The bill presented for payment, was not a bill.,which indicated the amount of electricity consumed through a correct meter. In this view of the matter, such a demand would not be a demand which has to be met It would not be demand which can be raised. It would not be a demand which needs to be paid.

(14) It is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 6,895.20 p, was, in fact, paid. This amount has been recovered in a manner, which is contrary to the provisions of the Electricity Act. especially Section 26(1) and 26(6), inasmuch as the demand related to a period in excess of six months.

(15) The argument of Mr. Datta that the consumption of electricity is not denied, and that the amount of electricity consumed, has to be paid. for, in the facts of the instant case, does not carry much weight,as the amount of electricity consumed, cannot be determined owing to the inaction of the. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking in providing a correct meter, as required under Section 26(1) of the.

(16) I, Therefore, have to come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 6,895.29 p. which was recovered, should be refunded to the petitioner. In- asmuch as the demand of respondent No. 2 had to be met by the petitioner owing to the coercive process of threat of disconnection, the petitioner is also entitled to interest on the said amount. The rate of interest which is claimed is 12% per annum, the payment having been made in July/August, 1986, the demand of interest at that rate appears to be reasonable.

(17) I, Therefore, direct that the said amount of Rs. 6,895.20 p. be refunded to the petitioner together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of receipt of payment till date of repayment thereof, within a period of two months from today.

(18) It is pointed out that a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 was ordered to be paid as costs by the respondents to the petitioner, which amount has not been paid to date. Inasmuch as this petition succeeds, I direct that the petitioner is also entitled to his costs. I quantity the costs at Rs. 2,000.00 . This costs is in addition to the costs already imposed.

(19) The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.