HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1007829 of 2011 With WRIT - C No. - 1007824 of 2011 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no agreement was executed in pursuance to, the request made by the Single Applicant Consumer (SAC) for enhancement of load and thus, the Electricity Ombudsman was in error by directing the refund of the penalty levied by the petitioner against SAC. The Electricity Ombudsman, placing reliance on para 4.43(b)(ii), framed a view that it was incumbent that the steps as prescribed in the said provision had to be completed by the licensee and the non-completion thereof resulted in a loss to the SAC, which was a clear deficiency of service. There is no material to suggest that any acceptance or the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amarjeet Singh Rakhra Counsel for Respondent(s) : B.P. Pandey, S.R. Awasthi, Shailender Singh, Vijay Singh Gour Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amarjeet Singh Rakhra Counsel for Respondent(s) : S R Awasthi, Shailender Singh, Vijay Singh Gour Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division-II .....Petitioner(s) Electricity Ombudsman U.P.Iiird Floor Neda Bhawan And Another .....Respondent(s) Executive Engineer Raja Babu Electricity Distribution .....Petitioner(s) Electricity Ombudsman U.P.Iiird Floor Neda Bhawan And Anr. .....Respondent(s) things related were done by the petitioner in terms of para 4.43(b)(i) termed by the petitioner. Thus, the finding with regard to the deficiency of service does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. With the aforesaid, this petition stands dismissed. September 9, 2025 Haseen U. WRIC No. 1007829 of 2011 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench