Considering the nature of controversy, writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission itself with the consent of Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandurkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner – industry seeks to challenge the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by Electricity Ombudsman in Representation No. 132 of 2009 holding that as the petitioner – industry is not on a express feeder, it is not entitled to continuous electric supply and is entitled to refund of excess charges recovered from it by respondents wrongly treating it as on express feeder. The contention in short, of the petitioner is that it has been sanctioned electric supply as continuous supply industry and subsequent introduction of concept of express feeder cannot change its that status.

3. The facts are not in dispute. The respondents sanctioned supply to the petitioner on 22.08.1995. This order of sanction titled as Load Sanction Order mentions that it is fresh/continuous industry for manufacturer of paper with maximum demand of 800 KVA. Accordingly, the industry continued to enjoy uninterrupted supply till 30.06.2009 and on 01.07.2009, there was interruption. The petitioner upon enquiry gathered that it was due to load shedding. The petitioner made representation on 01.07.2009 and 06.07.2009 pointing out that their industry has been accepted and recognized as continuous process industry and was entitled to continuous power supply. They pointed out that it is being assessed and charged accordingly. They also made some allegations of malafides and ultimately as their grievance was not redressed, they filed Case No. CGRF (NUZ)/042/2009 before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of Maharashtra Electricity Distribution Company Limited at Nagpur. The forum rejected that grievance after observing that the petitioner has to pay cost of estimate for express feeder and thereafter only the facility of continuous supply can be dedicated to it. This order of Consumer Forum dated 05.09.2009 & entire exercise was then assailed by the petitioner in Representation No. 132 of 2009 before Electricity Ombudsman and that representation was found without any merit. Thereafter this petition has been filed.

4. Shri Mehta, learned counsel has pointed out that supply has been started to the petitioner industry on 19.05.1995 and since then the industry has been recognized as continuous processing industry as per letter dated 24.07.1995. He states that this was as per the conditions and miscellaneous charges for supply of electrical energy effective from 01.01.1976 issued by predecessor of petitioner by name Maharashtra State Electricity Board. He points out that Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005, cannot apply retrospectively and therefore, cannot affect the status of petitioner industry. He invites attention to Commercial Circular No. 45 dated 09.10.2006 to show that it has come into force from 01.10.2006 and the petitioner has been charged additional supply charge (ASC) accordingly. He also invites the categories of customers as contained therein to show that the petitioner falls in “O” (zero) load shedding pattern. The continuous status of the petitioner industry is also recognized therein. Attention is invited to Commercial Circular No. 47 issued on 04.11.2006 which deals with implementation of Revision in Tariff which came in to force from 01.10.2006. He points out that there again the petitioner industry is recognized as zero load shedding and because of deeming provision contained in clause (4), it is a continuous supply industry treated as on express feeder. Attention is invited to order of Consumer Forum to show that it only reproduced rival contentions and without evaluating them comparatively, suddenly records conclusion. The decision of Ombudsman i