JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment dated 30.9.2011 passed in Appeal No. EOJ/03/2011 by learned Electricity Ombudsman, Jharkhand rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the judgment dated 11.4.2011 passed in Case No. 05/2010 by learned Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Nivaran Forum (hereinafter referred to as the 'VUSNF' in short). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the judgment dated 11.4.2011 passed by learned VUSNF. 2. According to the petitioner, the judgment passed by learned Ombudsman and learned VUSNF are arbitrary, misconceived and contrary to the provisions of law. In the said judgments, the petitioner has been asked to consider the respondent's application dated 25.5.2009 for settlement of the bill under the OTS Scheme. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned VUSNF, on the one hand, has directed for remission of various charges, on the other, has asked the petitioner to consider the respondent's application filed under OTS Scheme, after correcting the bill as per the judgment. It has been submitted that 'One Time Settlement Scheme' is only meant for those consumers who are ready to settle the bill without raising any dispute against the bill. But in the instant case, contrary to the said provision and object of the OTS Scheme, learned VUSNF has directed for remission of various charges as well as to consider the application filed by the consumer-respondent under the OTS Scheme. The petitioner had challenged the said judgment and direction of learned VUSNF before learned Ombudsman, who also did not appreciate the correct position of law as well as the facts involved in the case and has erroneously dismissed the petitioner's appeal holding that the judgment of learned VUSNF dated 11.4.2011 is perfect and does not require any interference. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the judgments of learned VUSNF as well as of learned Ombudsman passed in appeal, is wholly misconceived and unsustainable in view of the fact that learned VUSNF has acted beyond its jurisdiction in deciding the various controversies which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the disputes raised before learned VUSNF. Learned VUSNF has fruther acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B) to dispose of the respondent's application under the OTS Scheme after remission of various charges. Learned VUSNF has fruther acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B) to dispose of the respondent's application under the OTS Scheme after remission of various charges. Learned counsel submitted that if there is dispute regarding various charges, the same are to be independently decided. The proposal of settlement under the OTS Scheme cannot be entertained, if there is dispute regarding the amount due. The OTS Scheme is meant for one time settlement of all the disputes between the consumer and the J.S.E.B. Learned VUSNF has erroneously decided the various disputes between the consumer and the J.S.E.B and directed the petitioner to consider the application under the O.T.S Scheme. The order is self-contradictory, anomalous and unsustainable. Learned Ombudsman has also not taken into consideration the said legal aspect and has erroneously held that the judgment of learned VUSNF does not require any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and materials on record. 6. There is a chequered background of the dispute between the J.S.E.B and the consumer-respondent, which ultimately led to institution of Case No. 5/2010 before learned Vidyut Upbhokta Shikayat Niwaran Forum. According to the consumer-respondent-M/S Rishi Cement Company Limited, the respondent-J.S.E.B was not able to supply electricity energy to the petitioner continuously and constantly in accordance with the agreement on that ground and also in view of inability of the petitioner to consume electricity on account of strike etc., the petitioner was entitled to remission / reduction / deduction / adjustment of maximum demand charges and minimum guarantee charges. Under Clause 13 of the HT agreement, the respondent had claimed the said remission, deduction etc. before the concerned authority of the J.S.E.B, but no order was passed. The petitioner then filed writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 3854/2000(R) praying for a direction on the respondent for remission / adjustment etc. By order dated 1.12.2000, the said writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the respondent (petitioner in that case) to file representation before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Hazaribagh. The respondent filed representation, but the same was rejected by the concerned authority by order dated 19.3.2002. Thereafter, there were several round litigations. Ultimately, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2734/2009 was disposed of referring the matter to learned VUSNF. Before learned VUSNF, the consumer as well as the J.S.E.B appeared and took their points. The respondent filed representation, but the same was rejected by the concerned authority by order dated 19.3.2002. Thereafter, there were several round litigations. Ultimately, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2734/2009 was disposed of referring the matter to learned VUSNF. Before learned VUSNF, the consumer as well as the J.S.E.B appeared and took their points. On the basis of the claim of the consumer and the stand taken by the J.S.E.B, several issues were framed. Learned VUSNF, thereafter, discussed the issues distinctly and considered all the relevant aspects and decided each issue with speaking reasons. 7. After going through the judgment of learned VUSNF, I find that the relevant facts and materials on record as well as the provisions of law have been thoroughly discussed and elaborate reasons have been recorded in support of findings arrived at on each issue in the impugned judgment dated 11.4.2011. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-J.S.E.B filed appeal before learned Ombudsman, Jharkhand being Appeal No. EOJ/03/2011. The J.S.E.B pleaded almost all the points and took grounds which have been taken in this writ petition. 9. Learned Ombudsman considered the appeal and discussed every aspect in detail issue-wise and came to the finding that proper decision and direction have been given by learned VUSNF while deciding the Issues framed and there is no merit in the appeal. Learned Ombudsman, thus, dismissed the appeal. 10. I find that learned VUSNF has recorded elaborate reasons in deciding each issue involved in the case. Learned Ombudsman has properly reviewed the same in appeal and has also independently recorded its finding on each issue affirming the findings and judgment of learned VUSNF, which is an expert body and is specially constituted to decide such type of issues. 11. I find no ground to interfere with the said concurrent findings and judgments of VUSNF and learned Ombudsman. 12. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.