A writ of certiorari is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or manifest errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities, based on a reasonable interpretation of regulatory tariff provisions, are not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction.

11/Dated: 21^st January, 2026

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order passed by the Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum, (herein referred as VUSNF) Ranchi dated 24.02.2011 in case no. 13 of 2010 by which the bills issued for the month of November 2009 to February 2010 have been quashed and JSEB (writ petitioner herein) was directed to refund/adjust the amount charged and recovered to the tune of Rs. 83455/- with interest. Further, the quashing of the order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman in appeal has also been sought for by which order dated 24.02.2011 has been confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition reads as:

(i) The writ petitioner is a deemed licensee cum transmission utility which is engaged in the business of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to its consumers within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand and the respondent(petitioner before VUSNF) is a consumer of the writ petitioner JSEB and had taken an electrical connection bearing Consumer no. HK 5429 under HTS-1 Mode of tariff having contract demand of 105 KVA and the supply of electricity has commenced w.e.f. 04.09.2007.

(ii) The HT agreement to that effect was executed between the writ petitioner and the respondent namely M/s. Mangalam Plastics on 25.07.2007.

(iii) It is the case of respondent before the VUSNF that maximum demand of consumer for the month of November, 2009 was recorded more than the 115% of the contract dermanl therefore the petitioner/JSEB charged the maximum demand on the basis of actual recorded K.V.A. i.c. 128.85 K.V.A. because if the said exceeded demand was supposed to be treated as contract demand of the respondent, the only burden which would have been imposed upon the consumer/complainant/respondent is the maximum demand/KVA charges and nothing else.

(iv) It is further case of the respondent/consumer that the aforesaid bill for the month of November, 2009 of consumer/respondent was arbitrarily charged Rs. 12.262/- without any basis under the heading "correction if any Similarly, the petitioner/JSEB in the same arbitrarily fashion h”a. s charged in the bills of December, 2009, January, 2010 and February, 2010 amounting to Rs. 22,894, Rs 21,710/- and Rs. 26,589/- respectively under the heading correction if any

(v) Conseque“ntly, the respo”.ndent had approached the writ petitioner/ JSEB for redressal of its grievances and the writ petitioner/ JSEB replied that the aforesaid amounts have been charged under the heading correction if any "on energy units by calculating the guarantee charges on the basis of exceeded KVA".

(vi) But according to the consumer/respondent no guarantee energy charges would have been raised on that basis of the contract demand of HT consumer. According to the respondent/consumer if any consumer exceeds its sanctioned load, the exceeded load shall be treated as contract demand for the purpose of maximum demand charges for six months and its impact would come only upon KVA charges and minimum monthly charges.

(vii) It is the case of the respondent that the writ petitioner/JSEB h