ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4871 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4871 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 4871 OF 2008 M/s. Prashant Engineering Works ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.G.Damale i/by Mr.Sanjay Gawde for the Petitioner. Mrs.Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.V.C.Chavan for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard Mr. Damle the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mrs. Bhende, the learned AGP for Respondent No.1 and Mr.Chavan the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The Petitioner disputed two electricity bills viz. bill dated 20th December, 2007 for an amount of Rs.2,69,532 and another bill for an amount of Rs.1,63,450/-. The Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum under the provisions of Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Act-2003. The Forum by its order dated 26/03/2008 held that both the aforesaid bills are correct. The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved preferred ( 2 ) representation before the Electricity Ombudsman under Section 43 of the above Act. The Petitioner’s representation was decided by the Ombudsman on 29/05/2008 by impugned order, whereby the amount of the first electricity bill was reduced to Rs.1,45,133/- from Rs.2,69,532 and the second bill is maintained. 3. Mr. Damle, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner obtained the impugned order on the ground that at the time of inspection carried on 13th January 2007 some of the machinery was lying idle and therefore, bill for the period in which machinery was not working, could not have been charged. However, when query was made to the Petitioner by the Ombudsman, whether he put his remarks in this regard the inspection report which is signed and acknowledge by the Appellant the petitioner replied in negative. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this submission. The learned Ombudsman approached the Petitioners case from correct point of view. No error is pointed out to me to interfere in the exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. The Petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed. ( 3 ) ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)