JUDGMENT G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. 1. This petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 20-5-2011 in C.G. No. MDK-119/2010-11 of Medak Circle of 5th respondent i.e., Electricity Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum, as confirmed by the 6th respondent, the Vidyuth Ombudsman in Appeal No. 42 of 2011 dated 9-12-2011, as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, Perused the record. 2. The petitioner is running a small industrial unit at Bada Mailaram, Mulugu Mandal, Medak District and for that purpose he obtained LT service connection bearing No. 460 from the 1st respondent CPDCL. The supply of power was released on 4-6-2009. The service connection is being inspected periodically by the respondents once in a month at the time of taking meter reading. Such an inspection took place in the 1st week of December, 2010 and spot bill for the month of November, 2010 was issued and in the said bill, the status of the meter was shown as 'OK'. Thereafter, another inspection was conducted on 3-1-2011 pursuant to which the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer issued a notice dated 4-3-2011 alleging that the meter was found to be defective and was not recording properly and proposed to back bill the petitioner for the period from 4-9-2009 to 5-1-2011, assessing the loss of energy at Rs.8,47,954/-. According to the petitioner, there was no defect in the functioning of the meter during the said period. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12-3-2011 requesting the 2nd respondent to send the meter for testing to NAL, Bangalore as the petitioner was not agreeable with the observation of the 2nd respondent that the meter was defective, but the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to send the same to NAL Bangalore. The petitioner raised a dispute by way of filing a petition before the Electricity Consumers Grievances Redressal Forum under Section 42 of the Act read with the General Terms and Conditions of Supply. The Forum has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 6th respondent Ombudsman in Appeal No. 42 of 2011 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 9-12-2011. 3. The Forum has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 6th respondent Ombudsman in Appeal No. 42 of 2011 and the same was also dismissed by order dated 9-12-2011. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except limiting the period of back billing to six months from the date of replacing of the defective CTPT, the Forum has not assigned any reasons for arriving at the conclusion that back billing was justified. The petitioner would further contend that the Forum ought to have directed that the meter be referred to an independent laboratory as requested by the petitioner in their representation dated 12-3-2011. The petitioner would further contend that the 6th respondent Ombudsman also did not deal with the matter on its merits and passed mechanical order confirming the order of the forum. 4. Admittedly, no defect in the functioning of the meter was detected till December, 2010 when the meter was last inspected and the bill for November, 2010 was issued. But in the next month, when the meter was inspected on 3-1-2011, according to the respondents, the meter was found to be defective due to CTPT (Current Transformer and Potential Transformer) equipment and on the said premise back billing was proposed for the period from 4-9-2009 to 5-1-2011, assessing the loss of energy in a sum of Rs.8 lakhs and odd. The petitioner has specifically disputed the claim of the respondents that there was defective recording of units and denied defect in the functioning of the meter in his representation dated 12-3-2011. The petitioner made a specific request to the department to get the meter tested by an independent laboratory like NAL. Bangalore. 5. A perusal of the order of the Forum would show that after extracting the contentions of the parties and extracting the depositions of the witnesses on behalf of the department, the Forum passed a cryptic order to the effect that it felt necessary to order the respondents to limit the back billing for six months period prior to the date of replacement of the defective CTPT, as per Clause 7.5.1.44 of the GTCS. The order of the 5th respondent Forum does not record any finding as to the request made by the petitioner that the meter may be sent for testing to an independent laboratory, as he was specifically disputing that there was any defect in the functioning of the meter. The order of the Forum further shows that at the time of enquiry, the petitioner was not present and no one appeared on its behalf. The appellate order of the 6th respondent Ombudsman endorsed the order passed by the Forum with an observation that as the meter was found defective when tested in MRT Laboratory by the respondents in the presence of the appellant's representative, the appellant is estopped from contending that the meter has to be sent to any other laboratory. The petitioner disputes that the meter was tested in their presence. He would further submit that under the Central Electricity (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations 2006 which provide a mechanism in case of the meters being found defective, the meter is required to be tested at an independent laboratory like NAL, Bangalore and the procedure contemplated in the said regulations has not been followed by the respondents in respect of specific request made to that effect by the petitioner. The impugned order of the 6th respondent Ombudsman would also disclose that the Forum examined respondents 1 and 2, but the complainant did not appear before the Forum. 6. In the circumstances, as the impugned orders by the Forum and the appellate order by the Ombudsman came to be passed without there being any effective participation by the petitioner in the enquiry and the said orders are not adjudicating upon the claim of the petitioner that the meter is required to be sent for testing by an independent laboratory under the regulations, it is considered just and proper to set aside the impugned orders of the 5th respondent Forum and 6th respondent Ombudsman and remit the matter to the 5th respondent Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law, duly recording specific findings on merits on various contentions raised by the petitioner, including the one relating to testing of the meter by an independent laboratory and as to how the assessment of the loss of revenue made by the respondents is justifiable. The Forum is directed to dispose of the matter afresh after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to both parties. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the 5th respondent as stated above. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There shall be-no order as to costs.