:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1872 OF 2008 Maharshtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Whistling Woods International Ltd. ..Respondent Ms. A.R.S. Baxi for petitioner. Mr.Sinil Purohit and Mr. Rohan Cama with Ms. Sandhya Tolat i/by M/s. Vimadalal and Co. for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : June 02, 2008. Date : June 02, 2008. Date : June 02, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Baxi the learned counsel for the petitioner-company which is aggrieved by the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman on 3/1/2008. 2. The respondent-Company had approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum created under the Electricity Act of 2003 in Case No. 108 of 2007 and the Forum consisting of three Members by its order dated 26/2/2007 and 9/3/2007 had directed all the parties to follow the formula set out in para 10 of :2: the said order. Subsequently, by its order dated 21/9/2007, the Forum directed the respondent no.1-Comapny to pay an amount of Rs.56,65,760/- within one month to the present petitioner in order to execute the work as per the sanctioned estimate and to release the load. Both these orders were not challenged by the present petitioner. However, it is the respondent no.1-Company who approached the Electricity Ombudsman by way of a representation/appeal which came to be registered as Representation No. 73 of 2007. The said representation has been decided by the impugned order. The Electricity Ombudsman noted that the contract load already made available to the respondent no.1-company initially was to the extent of 300 KVA and it needed the additional load of 689 KVA. Consequently, the present petitioner would be entitled to recover Service Connection Charges (SSC) for the total load of 989 KVA. 3. Ms. Baxi the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Electricity Ombudsman fell in error in noting that the total contract demand of :3: the respondent no.1-Company was 989 KVA and, in fact, it was 1550 KVA. This submission is not supported by any document on record. The application submitted by the respondent no.1- company was for a connected load of 1550 KW with contract demand of 989 KVA. The Service Connection Charges are payable on the contract demand and not on connected load and no provision has been pointed out either from the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Other Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 2005 or the Electricity Act of 2003 to suggest that the Service Connection Charges are payable on the connected load and not on contract demand. 4. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman does not suffer from any errors so as to cause interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. The petition is, therefore, rejected summarily. :4: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)