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