CWP-26650-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No.213 CWP-26650-2018 Decided on:07.07.2026 Sant Ishar Singh Public School Chahal . . . Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. K. K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Sylvester, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.09.2018, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent no.3/Ombudsman Electricity, Punjab, and also the order dated 28.03.2018, Annexure P-2, passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of `9,29,558 by applying correct multiplying factor two, instead of one. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application to the respondent/Corporation for extension of load from 12KW to 35 KW on 04.01.2012. The sanctioned load was accordingly extended to 35 KW on 27.08.2012 vide Sundry Job Order dated 04.01.2012, whereby the three phase four wire whole current energy meter of 10-60A was replaced MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.16 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26650-2018 -2- with LT-CT operated static energy meter, for which the correct multiplication factor was two. On 04.12.2017, the enforcement officials of the Corporation inspected the said connection on-site vide ESR no.03/243 and reported, though a multiplying factor of two was needed to be applied to generate electricity bill, the ledger reflected the multiplying factor as one. Accordingly, notice dated 08.12.2017 was issued for an amount of `14,01,148 towards actual consumption of electricity based on the correct multiplying factor; the revised notice, dated 03.01.2018, was issued for an amount of `9,29,558. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the same before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and the petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.03.2018, holding as under: Forum observed that Clause 21.5 of Supply Code 2014 > Overhauling of Consumer Accounts > Note to Clause 21.5.1: Inaccurate Meters stated as under:- "Where accuracy of meter is not involved and it is a case of application of wrong multiplication factor, the accounts shall be overhauled for the period this mistake continued." Forum further observed that Petitioner has quoted Hon'ble High Court Judgement in case of M/s Park Hyundai, this case relates to a period when Supply Code, 2007 was in existence and there was no proviso as now provided under Supply Code, 2014 as brought out in above para. The Supply Code, 2014 empowers that the account of the Petitioner shall be overhauled for the period this mistake of omission of multiplying factor continued. In the instant case the checking of petitioner's premises is done on 04.12.2017 when the Supply code 2014 was made effective from 01.01.2015. In view of above, Forum is of the opinion that account of the Petitioner be overhauled from 09.05.2014 to November, 2017 MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.16 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26650-2018 -3- due to application of wrong multiplying factor 1.00 instead of 2.00. Keeping in view the above, Forum came to the unanimous conclusion that overhauling account of the Petitioner by Respondent from 09.05.2014 to November, 2017 amounting to Rs.9,29,558/- vide its letter no. 10 dated 03.01.2018 by applying correct multiplying factor 2.00 instead of 1.00 is justified and recoverable as per Note to Clause 21.5.1 of Supply Code 2014. 4. The petitioner went in appeal against this order before respondent no.3/Ombudsman which was decided vide order dated 13.09.2018, affirming the order passed by the Forum; at the same time, directing that recovery of the amount from the petitioner will be made in ten monthly installments without levy of any interest and surcharge. It was because the Corporation was also held responsible for the lapses in not keeping a watch on the variations in consumption during the disputed period wherein mistake in the application of incorrect multiplication factor continued from June, 2014 to November, 2017. The operative part of the order reads as under: I am also of the view that since checking of the connection of the Petitioner was done on 04.12.2017 and the period of overhauling of the account of the Petitioner was from 19.05.2014 to 11/2017, the provisions of the Supply Code-2014 (effective from 01.01.2015) only were applicable/relevant in the instant case. From the above analysis, the legitimacy of overhauling the account of the Petitioner for the period from 19.05.2014 to November 2017 and charging it with a sum of Rs. 9,29,558/-, on account of application of wrong Multiplication Factor 1 instead of 2, proves beyond doubt. 5. Decision: MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.16 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26650-2018 -4- As a sequel of above discussions, the order dated 28.03.2018 of the Forum in Case No. CG-40 of 2018 is upheld. It is also held that the recovery of amount shall be made by the Respondent in 10 monthly instalments and no interest and surcharge be levied since the Respondent was also responsible for lapses on its part. 5. Learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2/Corporation submitted that the impugned orders have been passed as per provisions of the applicable policy/the Supply Code, 2014 (applicable from 01.01.2015). It is not a case of inaccuracy of meter etc., but pertains solely to the wrong application of multiplication factor by the officials and, therefore, the petitioner has to be charged for the exact consumption of electricity, which is not in dispute. 6. Heard. 7. In the light of the facts aforementioned, it is apparent that the actual consumption of electricity in respect of which the petitioner has been charged by way of revised demand bill from June, 2014 to November, 2017, is not in dispute. The only issue that arises is the correct application of multiplication factor to charge the consumption, and in terms of clause 21.5.1 of Supply Code, 2014, where the accuracy of meter is not an issue and the case involves application of wrong multiplication factor only, the accounts shall be overhauled for the period the mistake continued. This clause is not under challenge and there is no escape from concluding that the petitioner is required to be charged in terms therewith, as has been done by the respondents by raising the demand in question. Failing to record the variation in consumption during the disputed period and allowing the mistake in MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.16 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-26650-2018 -5- calculation of exact consumption to continue for the stated period, is a negligence of the Corporation for which it has to accept responsibility, and the consequent penalty. Keeping these facts in view, the petitioner has been absolved of his liability to pay interest and surcharge on the demanded amount. This direction of the Ombudsman strikes an equitable balance between the rights and liabilities of the parties. No interference is called for in the matter. 8. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 07.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.16 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment