Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Seeking quashing of order dated 23.07.2014 whereby, objection to electricity bills dated 13.05.2014 and 04.06.2014 were rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner M/s. Sheo Shakti Cement Industries is engaged in manufacturing of cement. It has an industrial unit at Hazaribagh for which it was granted electric connection with contract demand of 1067 KVA. On 21.01.2011, a new CTPT Metering Unit was installed though, the previous CTPT was neither burnt nor the petitioner had made a complaint. The replaced CTPT got burnt in the month February, 2014 however, it was replaced on 31.03.2014. The petitioner though, has been paying electric charges regularly, received bill dated 13.05.2014 for Rs. 1,87,82,208/- for the period February, 2011 to March, 2014. The petitioner filed an application on 25.05.2014 before the Chief Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board however, a supplementary bill dated 04.06.2014 for Rs. 1,80,45,968/- was raised. The Electricity Board filed its reply before the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer and vide order dated 23.07.2015, the objection of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner filed petitions dated 11.06.2014 and 23.06.2014 for sending the burnt CTPT for testing, the respondent-authority did not advert to the said issue. For the first time in the proceeding before the General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, the respondent-Board took a plea of Multiplying Factor however, the respondent-authority has not dealt with this issue also. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-17, which is a downloaded information on “understanding the multiplier” and submits that though the billing multiplier and the circuit multiplier are available on record, the meter multiplier has not been disclosed by the respondents and therefore, the actual Multiplying Factor cannot be calculated. It is contended that in view of bar under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the respondent-Board cannot realise the amount raised in the supplementary bill because it was time-barred.

5. Percontra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that in view of Regulation 26 of the Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers and Electricity Ombudsman (Regulation 2011), if the grievance of the consumer is not redressed, the consumer is required to approach the Commission. It is submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner involves serious disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceeding. It is submitted that the Installation Reports dated 27.01.2011 and 31.03.2014 would disclose that the Multiplying Factor (MF) for CTPT Metering Unit installed at petitioner's premises was MF 2000 whereas, due to mistake energy bills were raised for MF 1200 only. The said error in the energy bills were for the period between 24.01.2011 to 31.03.2014 therefore, a supplementary bill was raised for recovery of the said amount. It is submitted that at the time of installation of new CTPT Metering Unit, a report was prepared which was duly signed by the petitioner. The report clearly discloses Multiplying Factor and other necessary details and therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner that the meter should have been sent for testing is untenable. It is submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of tempering nor it was a defective meter and therefore, CTPT Metering Unit which was replaced on 27.01.2011 did not require testing at the 3rd party installation.

6. I find that in its objection dated 24.05.2014, the petitioner took a plea that neither any detail was given