JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the consumer against the judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.1174 of 2017, wherein the only benefit as such which was granted regarding the interest element which had been levied regarding the electricity bill, which was held to be waived off. The appellant was permitted to deposit the balance amount in first installment of 1/3rd amount and remaining in equal five installments within 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

2. The learned Single Judge while dealing with Clause 93.1 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual came to the conclusion that the issue involved was on account of a complaint of wrong application of multiplying factor and no case for interference was called for in the impugned order dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P-1). It was, accordingly, noticed that against the demand of Rs. 24,94,336/- which was for a period of more than 6 years by way of overhauling accounts, the deposit of Rs. 9,60,000/- had already been done and resultantly the balance amount was directed to be paid as noticed above.

3. Challenge in the writ petition by the appellant as such was to the decision of Ombudsman, Electricity, Punjab dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P-1), wherein petition had been filed challenging the order dated 12.08.2016 (Annexure R-4) of the Grievances Redressal Forum which had upheld the decision of the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee in its meeting held on 21.04.2016 charging the amount of Rs. 23,96,680/- from the period September, 2009 to October, 2015.

4. It was the case of the appellant before the Ombudsman that the meter had been replaced in September, 2009 and, thereafter, the consumption had remained consistent and after more than 6 years on account of the checking done on 21.10.2015 the billing had been enhanced on account of the fact that multiplier factor of MF=1 had been applied instead of MF=2. It was submitted that the fault lay on the part of the concerned officers and if they had pointed out any mistake at the time of recording monthly readings, the same could have been sorted out. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Single Bench passed in CWP No.14559 of 2007 Tagore Public School v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, which had been upheld in LPA No.734 of 2010 Punjab State Electricity Board v. Tagore Public School and another' decided on 29.06.2010. Similarly, reliance was placed upon judgment passed in CWP No.17699 of 2014 M/s Park Hyundai v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others' decided on 19.12.2015 that arrears could not be raised beyond more than 6 months.

5. A perusal of the order of the Ombudsman dated 26.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) would go on to show apart from noting contention of both the sides, no reasoning was given as to why the benefit was not to be granted and the demand notice dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure R-2/T) had been upheld and can be termed as a non-speaking order. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:-

"The Respondents, in defense of their claim argued that the demand is correctly raised in view of the note given below made there under, as amended from time to time and is squarely covered under the amended Regulations applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2015. Therefore, the decision dated 12.08.2016 of CGRF taken in appeal Case No: CG-71 of 2016 is held good as the demand raised vide Notice dated 23.10.2015 is found justified and recoverable. Accordingly, it is directed that the amount excess/short, after adjustm