JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the appellant-writ petitioner, is to the order dated 05.09.2017 of the Learned Single Judge passed in CWP-1637-2015 titled Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & others, wherein the writ petition was dismissed.

2. The learned Single Judge crystallized the controversy to the extent that the connection was installed in the premises of the appellant on 17.10.2002 and was checked on 17.06.2005. During the period of 32 months, total consumption was 412410 units and after the CT/PT which had been changed, the consumption had arisen to 644792 units in 32 months and thus, the Corporation was justified in coming to the conclusion that one of the phases was not contributing and therefore, it had to pay for the energy from the date CT/PT meter was installed.

3. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that vide the communication dated 09.06.2004 (Annexure P-1) the appellant had brought to the notice of the Corporation that there was sparking in one phase and the workers of the Corporation were not able to rectify the sparking and due to faulty contact they were not getting stable voltage for the smooth running of the Exchange and damage had been caused on 17.06.2005 and the power supply to the Telephone Exchange had been disrupted. Resultantly, a demand of Rs.8,90,394/- was raised on 07.11.2005 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the checking which was done on 17.06.2005 and it was found that its Red Phase related CT was torn and that it had not been contributing from 17.10.2002. The same had been objected to on 09.11.2005 (Annexure P-4) and dispute was sought to be referred to the Disputes Settlement Committee.

4. Initially, a suit was filed on 16.02.2006 seeking injunction from disconnecting the electricity supply and seeking a declaration that the demand raised on 07.11.2005 was wrong. The Civil Court noticed that the inspection was not done in the presence of the officials of the appellant and they were right for making the payments in 2 equal instalments also. However, the injunction was declined on the ground that they could go to the Disputes Settlement Committee and the suit was barred under section 41(h) of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963. The same was dismissed on 23.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) and the appeal was dismissed on 31.07.2013 (Annexure P-8) by the Lower Appellate Court, Ludhiana by noticing that part payment had been deposited. Regular Second Appeal No.4940 of 2013 was partly allowed on 28.01.2014 (Annexure P-9) with direction to withdraw the appeal as well as the civil suit and to approach the authority constituted under the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 by noting that 50% of the amount to the tune of Rs.4,45,197/- had already been paid on 07.03.2006.

5. The Zonal Redressal Grievance Committee noticed that after the change of CT/PT the consumption for 32 months had arisen to 644792 units and the consumption 412410 unit as Red Phase is taken, then the average comes to 61861 units and held that the record was in order and the disputed amount was payable. Resultantly, the bill was raised for remaining amount of Rs.4,45,197/- and interest was also levied from 07.03.2006 onwards to 15.05.2014. Eventually, the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of the Corporation also came to the conclusion that there was 1/3rd less consumption and the R-phase current in DDL was regularly showing as 'zero' and therefore, upheld the demand on 22.07.2014 (Annexure P-15).

6. Appellant met no success before the Ombudsman on 11.1