Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Electricity Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as well as by the Electricity
Ombudsman in appeal are unsustainable and bad in law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order.
4. Two authorities have concurrently held that the meter equipment was changed on 29-8-2006 and new instrument was installed in the premises of
the petitioner. Billing ought to have been made by applying the multiplier of 100, but erroneously, it was made by applying the multiplier of 33.3. Billing
was made from September, 2006 to September, 2007 which was detected by the audit report and consequently, the error was rectified and by
applying the multiplier of 100, supplementary bill has been issued.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the concurrent finding recorded by the two authorities holding that
the incorrect multiplier adopted has been corrected and thereby supplementary bill has been issued, is a finding of fact based on the material available
on record in which I do not find any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition
deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
