JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. The petitioner (Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited) has brought under challenge the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad, constituted under the provision of the Electricity Act 2003. The order and direction against which, in particular, the petitioner is aggrieved and has preferred present petition reads thus:- "5.7 However tariff condition is violated during day time in November 2008 hence HTP-1 tariff applied is in order but in case of bill of October 2008, as para 3.2 genuine mistake while closing of factory, agreed by applicant, penalty should be operated on demand charge for whole month and avoid penalty on energy charge. Monthly bill is to be revised accordingly, No interest is to be paid for refund amount." 2. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He has contended that the order is without jurisdiction. He has also submitted that if such plea that the incident in question was genuine mistake is accepted then all consumers will raise such plea and escape the consequence of the breach of agreed terms by raising the plea that the incident arose due to mistake. He submitted that the order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 3. It is noticed that the respondent is a consumer who has been granted electricity connection by the petitioner. The respondent is having H.T. Connection and tariff applied in case of respondent is HTP-IV tariff. 3.1 It is the case of the petitioner that according to the contract and the terms of the tariff the respondent was bound to use electricity connection carrying HTP-IV tariff only and exclusively during night hours. However, the respondent consumed more than 10% consumption of the contracted demand during day hours in the month of October 2008 - November 2008 and that therefore, for the said period the petitioner applied HTP-I tariff instead of the HTP-IV tariff (which was ordinarily applicable as per the terms of the contract, terms of the supply and terms of the tariff). 3.2 The petitioner has claimed that being aggrieved by such action of the petitioner licencee, the respondent consumer approached Consumer Redressal Forum and the respondent's application was disposed of by order dated 19.5.2008. Upon being aggrieved by the said decision the respondent consumer approached ombudsmen constituted under the Act. 3.2 The petitioner has claimed that being aggrieved by such action of the petitioner licencee, the respondent consumer approached Consumer Redressal Forum and the respondent's application was disposed of by order dated 19.5.2008. Upon being aggrieved by the said decision the respondent consumer approached ombudsmen constituted under the Act. 3.3 The ombudsmen after hearing the concerned parties, passed impugned order and directed the petitioner to revise monthly bill according to the direction contained in paragraph 5.7 of the order. 3.4 Being aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner has, as aforesaid challenged the decision. 4. Learned ombudsmen has recorded the factual aspects of the case which are as follows:- "2.1 the applicant is HT consumer bearing No.23/49 of PGVCL having 475 KVA contract demand. Billing tariff is HTP-IV. 2.2 the applicant was billed under HTP-I tariff for violation of HTP-IV tariff condition of the month of October 2008 and November 2008, as it has crossed 10% of limit of Ma. Demand during day time, as following time. Month of Billing Demand Recorded Time of recording (a) Oct 2008 13.6*6(MF)=81.6KVA 6 to 6.30 Hrs. on 19.10.2008 (b) Nov 2008 9.3*6(MF)=55.8KVA 17.30 to 18.0 Hrs. on 16.11.2008 (c) Nov 2008 11.2*6(MF)=67.2KVA 21.30 to 22.0 Hrs. on 16.11.2008 These are system generated billing parameters which are confirmed by MRI data sheet." 4.1 Learned ombudsmen also recorded the plea of present petitioner that the respondent consumer had violated condition of HTP-IV tariff and therefore it was being charged under HTP-I tariff. 4.2 On the other hand the respondent consumer raised grievance against illegal billing served during October-November 2008 by HTP-I tariff whereas according to the terms of contract, terms of supply and terms of tariff the consumer ought to have been billed as per the HTP-IV tariff. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned ombudsmen has recorded that reading shown in the bill of October 2008 is different than actual reading taken by the respondent. However, having taken note of the entire material on record as well as the submissions of the contesting parties, the ombudsmen also recorded that: "It is genuine mistake for running mill for five more minutes while closing factory on date 19.10.2008 morning". The ombudsmen has also recorded that: "3.5 During bill of November 2008, Kwh consumption, capacitor remained in service on dated 16.11.2008, which helped the grid system to improved voltage. The ombudsmen has also recorded that: "3.5 During bill of November 2008, Kwh consumption, capacitor remained in service on dated 16.11.2008, which helped the grid system to improved voltage. High KVA recording is due to high reactive flow, Total day time consumption is only 36 Kwh in November 2008. Defective meter is responsible for MD in KVA on date 16.11.2008." 5.1 The ombudsmen has declined to interfere with the bill for November 2008 and held that HTP-I tariff which was applied, was in order. 5.2 However, so far as the bill for month of October 2008 is concerned, the ombudsmen has noticed that while closing factory, by mistake running of the mill continued for 5 more minutes on 19.10.2008 and having regard to the said finding of fact the ombudsmen has ordered that the penalty should be operated on demand charges for the whole month, however penalty on energy charges may be avoided and with the said limited modification i.e. only in respect of penalty on energy charges the ombudsmen has, upon reaching such finding of fact, directed the petitioner to modify bill only for the month of October 2008 accordingly and not for November 2008. 5.3 When after having recorded finding of fact, ombudsmen ordered the petitioner to avoid only penalty and that too only on energy charges and to let the penalty operate simply on demand charges, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such limited modification by the ombudsman. 5.4 So far as the petitioners contention about jurisdiction of ombudsman and /or Tribunal in passing order is concerned, the contention is misconceived since, the matter before the authority involved dispute about tariff i.e. application of appropriate tariff. It is not in dispute that the tariff applicable in case of respondent, as per the terms of tariff and terms of supply/contract, is HTP-IV tariff. The contract also provides that in certain cases, including breach of the terms of the contract, the petitioner can apply HTP-I tariff. However, if it is noticed by the ombudsmen that the circumstances in which such power could have been exercised by the licencee actually did not exist, then the dispute raised by the parties would involve the question of tariff i.e. application of appropriate tariff and on such conclusion if the ombudsmen entertain the matter and interfere to the limited extent it cannot be said that the order is without jurisdiction. 6. 6. So far as the petitioner's contention that if such plea was to be entertained in all cases, the consumer may raise such plea and getaway with breach of terms of tariff, is concerned, the apprehension is undoubtedly baseless inasmuch as all cases are necessarily decided by the ombudsmen, and/or the learned tribunal as well as the inspector i.e. all statutory authorities, on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case and in light of the relevant tariff and that therefore such general apprehension is uncalled for. 7. In present case it is obvious and apparent that the ombudsman exercised power within its jurisdiction and passed order granting very limited interference only in respect of bill of October 2008 and refused to interfere with bill of November 2008 and the ombudsman interfered only so far as penalty was concerned and that too only so far as energy charges were concerned. 8. Such limited exercise of jurisdiction does not warrant any interference, more so when any error in exercise of discretion and/or in arriving at the conclusion is neither pointed out nor established. 9. Furthermore, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, the case involved change of tariff and/or application of appropriate tariff, in the bills for two months than the one provided under the contract. Thus there is no error or transgression of authority. Hence, on overall consideration the petitioner has failed to make out any ground to justify interference and/or infirmity in the order of ombudsman. 10. The petition, therefore fails and deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. No costs. Petition dismissed.