JUDGMENT RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (in short PSPCL) is in writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the Ombudsman, Electricity, Punjab exercising powers under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 read with the provisions of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Forum & Ombudsman), Regulations, 2005. The Ombudsman has set aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Forum dated 03.05.2011 and held that the respondent-Company did not violate the conditions in the permission letter and has, therefore, held that the amount of Rs. 24,19,574/- assessed by the Forum is not recoverable from the respondent-Company, the petitioner before the Ombudsman. Consequently, a direction has been issued that amounts in excess/short, if any, may be recovered/refunded from the petitioner with interest under the provisions of ESR-147. In the main, it has been held that the surcharge levied and impugned before the Ombudsman due to limited transformer capacity of PSEB supply, was not right since the flow of PSEB supply to TG Set load was technically impossible. Such levy has been held not recoverable for the period in question. Aggrieved, PSPCL assails the order of the Ombudsman. The contentions of Mr. Vishal Chaudhary for the petitioning PSPCL: In the State of Punjab, PSPCL is the sole provider of electricity to consumers in the State as Licencee. No consumer is allowed to install his own electricity generation sub-stations without the prior permission of PSPCL. The rationale being that the electricity is supplied and proportional to that, Revenue is generated by PSPCL. PSPCL is a Government of Punjab undertaking, it has codified regulations and guidelines that need to be adhered to. The Respondent had approached Punjab State Electricity Board (as PSPCL then was) for permission to install Turbine Generator Sets (for short T.G Sets). The said permission was granted subject to conditions as outlined in Annexure P-1 of the Writ Petition. The permission for the installation of T.G. Sets was granted vide letter dated 22.12.1994. The Respondent had approached Punjab State Electricity Board (as PSPCL then was) for permission to install Turbine Generator Sets (for short T.G Sets). The said permission was granted subject to conditions as outlined in Annexure P-1 of the Writ Petition. The permission for the installation of T.G. Sets was granted vide letter dated 22.12.1994. Mr Chaudhary appearing for PSPCL refers to Annexure P-2/A, dated 22.3.1994, P-2/B and P-2/C which are documents in the form of an undertaking (P-2/A) and Statements on Oath P-2/B dated 12.10.1994 and P-2/C dated 24.11.1994 respectively both prior to the issue of sanction letter dated 22.12.1994 provided to the Petitioner by the respondent to the effect that T.G Sets shall be used in isolation from PSEB system and there will be no arrangement for change over/bus coupler to inter flow of either supply. It was on the basis of these undertakings/affidavits that ultimately sanction was granted to the Respondent for installation of the T.G. Sets. As it turned out the conditions as outlined in Annexure P-1 were violated with impunity by the Respondent. Once conditions have been imposed and accepted, and further when sanction has been granted taking into consideration the Undertaking and Affidavits and subsequently when the Respondent in utter disregard to its own undertaking/Affidavits, and conditions as stipulated in the sanction letter (Annexure P-1) consumes electricity in an unauthorized manner, it has to be subjected to the Load Surcharge. Therefore, the tariff has been imposed on connected load in accordance with the Regulations. At the time of Checking on 28.2.2004, it was found that the entire load was running on T.G. Sets. Learned Counsel would point out that on the date of this checking peak crushing season of Sugarcane was in progress. Re: Reverse Power Relay That another checking took place on 5.5.2004 (Annexure P-3/A) and was carried on over to 6.5.2004. In the said Checking Report dated 5.5.2004 a mention is made of Reverse Power Relay. PSPCL officials had tested the Reverse Power Relay on 6.5.2004 and that time during testing it was found that the Reverse Power Relay worked and prevented the inter flow of electricity. At the time of checking in May 2004, peak crushing season was over, Sugar Mill being a seasonal industry. In the month of February 2004 (Annexure P-3), when checking was done it had come out clearly that all the load was being run from T.G. Sets. At the time of checking in May 2004, peak crushing season was over, Sugar Mill being a seasonal industry. In the month of February 2004 (Annexure P-3), when checking was done it had come out clearly that all the load was being run from T.G. Sets. Reverse Power Relay is a device solely under the control of the Respondent. The device was made to work during the off season by the Respondent as the electricity requirement was at its minimum. During the peak crushing season, Reverse Power Relay did not work, rather it was not made to work by the Respondent and resultantly as brought out in the Checking Report dated 28.2.2004 the entire load was being run from T.G. Sets. Annexure P-12 is the Data Download Report and the said Report at places, shows zero consumption of supply as provided by PSPCL. On the strength of the above facts it is argued by Mr Chaudhary that the impugned order passed by the Ombudsman is perverse, perfunctory and devoid of proper reasoning in the light of the facts and circumstances of the instant case as explained above. The fact of the matter is there had to be no inter flow between the PSPCL’s supply and the supply from T.G. Sets, both were supposed to run their own respective islanded loads. As is clear from the Checking Report dated 28.2.2004 (Annexure P-3, supra) and the Lay out plans as attached with the Writ petition as Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5 a change over switch had been installed resulting in the Respondent shutting the PSPCL supply and running the entire load from the T.G. Supply. A look at the Layout plan (P-5) according to the learned counsel clearly shows that a change over switch is placed between PSEB supply and DG supply, and that change over switch is further connected to another change over switch (shown in dotted blue line) that goes to the T.G. Sets, meaning thereby that all three supplies i.e. from PSPCL, D.G. and T.G. are inter connected. T.G. Sets being of massive capacity are solely used by the Respondent to run the entire load during the peak crushing season. A fact corroborated by Checking dated 28.2.2004 done during peak crushing season (Annexure P-3). T.G. Sets being of massive capacity are solely used by the Respondent to run the entire load during the peak crushing season. A fact corroborated by Checking dated 28.2.2004 done during peak crushing season (Annexure P-3). The load that was supposed to be catered to by the supply as provided by PSPCL was in such circumstances being catered to by the T.G. Sets resulting in loss of revenue to PSPCL. The contentions of Mr Patwalia for the answering respondent: The case facts marshalled and submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the Mills are as follows: The factual position according to Mr Patwalia is that the answering respondent maintains 3 TG Sets of capacity of 2 × 3125 KVA and one with a capacity of 3750 KVA. In addition to this there are two DG Sets of capacity of 320 KVA and 300 KVA which are two external sources for supply of electricity to the Sugar Mill and in addition to this electricity is also being supplied by PSPCL. The answering respondent is primarily a sugar plant and requires extensive electricity load of 5 Megawatts which is met by the TG Sets and DG Sets as standby units. The electricity supplied by PSPCL is primarily utilized for the residential colony, tube well, workshop, ETP, Street Lighting etc on the Mill premises. That vide permission dated 22.12.1994 issued by PSEB/PSPCL certain conditions have been imposed which have been mentioned in para 3 of the petition. It has been inter alia stated therein that the TG Sets shall run in isolation with PSEB Supply System and there should not be any inter flow of PSEB Supply and TG Generation of electricity. Further, no change over of switch/arrangement should be provided for inter flow of power in between PSEB and TG Generation System. It is only in case a change over switch is detected for using PSEB supply for TG Sets load, the petitioner shall impose surcharge on the entire load fed from the TG Sets. The petitioner PSPCL even remotely has not been able to substantiate with any cogent evidence either before the Ld. Forums below or before the Ombudsman or even before this Court pointing to any irregularity or violation of any condition imposed. The petitioner PSPCL even remotely has not been able to substantiate with any cogent evidence either before the Ld. Forums below or before the Ombudsman or even before this Court pointing to any irregularity or violation of any condition imposed. There is neither any change over switch detected for inter flow of power between PSPCL and TG Sets nor any evidence that there was any inter flow of power. This has also been conceded by Senior Executive Engineer of PSPCL and hence the present petition is not maintainable. It has been observed by the Ld. Forum below in its order dated 03.05.2011, that there are 3 sources of supply to the respondent, that is, PSEB/PSPCL, DG Sets and TG Sets. The change over switch becomes a necessity of the system and is required to be used for change of alternative source of supply in case of failure of supply. The only restriction which has been imposed by virtue of permission dated 22.12.1994 is that no change over switch should be installed for inter flow of PSEB supply and TG Sets and this condition has not been violated by the respondent. On 28.02.2004 the petitioners carried out an inspection at the unit in question and prepared a report (Annex. P-3). A perusal of the same would reveal that no where it has come on record that there has been a change over switch installed by the answering respondent for inter flow of PSEB supply and TG Generation. It has come on record that change over switch is only for PSEB supply and DG Sets supply, DG Sets Supply and TG Sets Supply and from one DG Set to the other DG Set. It is thus evident and clear that there was no violation of any condition as prescribed in permission dated 22.12.1994. Still further, the petitioner presumed that with the installation of change over switch there could be a link, through this change over switch, which may have an inter flow effect between PSEB supply and TG Sets supply. This issue was also negatived in the second inspection report dated 06.05.2004 (Annex. P-3) wherein it was reported that although there was no special loop attached to any change over switch, but even while providing such a loop to one of the change over switches the supply reached the control panel but the supply could not reach the TG load. This issue was also negatived in the second inspection report dated 06.05.2004 (Annex. P-3) wherein it was reported that although there was no special loop attached to any change over switch, but even while providing such a loop to one of the change over switches the supply reached the control panel but the supply could not reach the TG load. This has also been admitted by the petitioner in the impugned order where the Senior Executive Engineer conceded that no physical flow of power from PSEB supply to TG Set load has been established in any of the inspection reports. Thus two things emerge from perusal of the pleadings according to the learned counsel i.e. Firstly, as per the permission letter there should not be any change over switch for effecting inter flow of PSEB supply and TG generation. The inspection reports have proved that there has been no change over switch by which the inter flow of PSEB supply and TG Generation could be effected. Thus the condition of the permission letter dated 22.12.1994 has rightly been held in the impugned order to have not been violated by the answering respondent. Secondly, although and admittedly there was no special loop ever attached by the answering respondent to any of the change over switches but the petitioners have themselves attached a special loop to examine as to whether even in case, if such a loop is attached whether inter flow between PSEB supply and TG Sets could be effected or not. It has come on record and the PSPCL have even conceded before the Forums below that even on applying the special loop, no supply is effected from PSEB to TG Set. Thus, it is more than clear that the conditions of the permission letter dated 22.12.1994 were never violated by the answering respondent and the letter dated 05.08.2004 (Annex. P-6) was nothing but a completely illegal letter without any basis and has been rightly set aside by the Forums below. It is urged that the present petition also deserves to be dismissed as the letter dated 05.08.2004 is based on an absolutely impossible situation which has been rightly held so in the impugned order by the Forums below. An important fact which deserves to be noticed, according to Mr. It is urged that the present petition also deserves to be dismissed as the letter dated 05.08.2004 is based on an absolutely impossible situation which has been rightly held so in the impugned order by the Forums below. An important fact which deserves to be noticed, according to Mr. Patwalia is that PSPCL supply is for a contract demand of 750 KVA whereas surcharge has been levied for excess load of 11017.73 KW. It has been conceded by the petitioner before the Forums below that PSPCL supply could not have fed this load even remotely. Even if assuming the allegations as levelled in the notice dated 05.08.2004 to be correct, though vehemently denied by the learned counsel, it is still not possible for the PSEB supply of 750 KVA to cater to the load of 11017.73 KW even remotely. Hence, the position that emerges is that the allegation levelled in notice dated 05.08.2004 to the effect that answering respondent through a change over switch had been using PSEB supply instead of TG Supply is nothing but a situation which is completely impossible, rather imaginary and hence devoid of any merit. Thus Mr Patwalia argues that there are concurrent and consistent findings against the petitioner PSPCL from all the three courts below. Except for imaginary factual disputes raised there is no question of law arising in the present petition. There is a concession of the JE of the petitioner recorded in the impugned order passed by the Ombudsman dated 13-09-2011 which has not been disputed in the entire writ petition. This is apparent from the reading of the impugned order as dilated next below:- "It is apparent from the above that none of the reports establishes that the PSEB supply could reach TG Load and there was no change over switch between PSEB supply and TG set supply. When these observations made in the two inspections report were brought to the notice of the Sr. Xen, he conceded that inter-flow link was only between PSEB supply and DG set supply." The above concession has no where been disputed in the entire writ petition. During the course of proceedings, the Senior Executive Engineer conceded that no physical flow of power from PSEB supply to TG Set load has been established in any of the inspection reports. Xen, he conceded that inter-flow link was only between PSEB supply and DG set supply." The above concession has no where been disputed in the entire writ petition. During the course of proceedings, the Senior Executive Engineer conceded that no physical flow of power from PSEB supply to TG Set load has been established in any of the inspection reports. The entire argument of the petitioner PSPCL that by installation of change over switch between DG Sets and TG Sets supply there was inter flow of connections and therefore answering respondent was liable for surcharge, has been belied by PSPCL/PSEB's own report dated 06.05.2004 (at page 40 and 41 of the paper book). On the date of inspection this switch over was tried as an experimental proof but sadly failed. The relevant extract of the report of the Executive Engineer PSEB Patiala is as under:- "While checking RPR in the presence of PSEB team the observation as noted below. When PSEB supply was switched on and by providing special loop to changeover switch (TG & PSEB supply) the supply reached the control panel inter connecting the TG bus and the auxiliary bus, but on putting the load on the TG bus, the reverse power relay existing on the inter connecting panel operated and switched off the supply then the supply could not reach the TG Load. Interconnecting breaker could be switched on when it was tried to inject supply from TG set, but the said breaker could not be closed and supply was available from PSEB side." Therefore, the entire argument of the petitioner PSPCL fails on the basis of the said report. Consequently, the very foundation of imposition of surcharge is based on falsity and gross misreading of the permission letter which has been duly noticed by the Forums below. The permission granted to the answering respondent herein for installation of the TG Sets is apparent from a reading of letter dated 22.12.1994 which was subject to the following conditions (Page 3 of the paper-book): "The permission has been granted subject to the following conditions:- (iii) In case of detection of a change over switch/arrangement/bus coupler for using PSEB a supply for TG set/s load surcharge shall be charge for the entire load fed from TG sets. However, while completely misreading its case while issuing notice to the answering respondent vide memo dated 05.08.2004, the said conditions were totally misread as under:- "(iii) In case any change over switch/arrangement/bus coupler is found to be provided for supplies of Electricity Board and TG sets, in that event, surcharge for entire load running on the TG Sets will be imposed." (See page 44 of the paper book-Annexure P-6) A perusal thereof would reveal that the condition mentioned in the memo dated 5.8.2004 consisted of conditions of permission but deliberately excludes the words for using PSEB a supply for TG set/s load from condition No. 3 which shows that though change over switch is permissible but it is impermissible to use PSEB supply for TG set loads. Whereas the memo, assumes on the basis, as per conditions reproduced therein, that mere installation of change over switch is liable for surcharge which is wrong and contrary to conditions of permission letter. The impugned order takes strong notice of this omission (see page 102-4th line from top). The entire case of the petitioner is that PSEB/PSPCL load was being used to feed TG load which has been held to be an impossibility by the courts below. There is a categorical finding that PSEB load could not feed TG load and therefore the impugned order deserves to be sustained. The findings: On a thoughtful consideration of the matter and the arguments for and against canvassed before this court by both sides at length there appears to be merit in what Mr. Patwalia urges this Court to accept. The case hinges on checking reports carried out through inspections of the premises of the respondent Sugar Mill which deserve to be examined in the context of the permission letter of erstwhile PSEB dated 22-12-1994 which is the magna carta of the relationship existing between PSPCL and the respondent. The Senior Executive Engineer candidly conceded that the inter-flow link was only between PSEB supply and DG set supply, ruling out any misadventure on the part of the respondent or design of unauthorized use of supply. This fact remains unrebutted in the pleadings nor was it explained by PSPCL during the course of hearing. It is also not the case set up by PSPCL that the report of its senior official was either misleading or dishonest. This fact remains unrebutted in the pleadings nor was it explained by PSPCL during the course of hearing. It is also not the case set up by PSPCL that the report of its senior official was either misleading or dishonest. The T.G. Sets were a back up of power supply to keep the Mill running during peak crushing season which PSPCL could not meet on account of power shortage in the State. Empirical findings arrived at in the course of inspections made on the spot are not open to be reviewed judicially in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction much less would be to unnecessarily tinker with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three authorities below. The allegations levelled in the notice dated 5.08.2004 which kick started the proceedings against the respondent were clearly enlarged beyond the scope of the 1994 permission letter. The memo dated 5.08.2004 was per se contrary to the condition laid down in the permission letter dated 22.12.1994 and was a clumsy attempt to widen the net of surcharge. In this case PSPCL has tried to make confusion worse confounded. This Court has seen the game played before it. In fact no legal issue arises for determination here where the case is based on pure facts determined by PSPCL against itself. Lastly, even assuming arguendo that the respondent had been using its entire electric consumption from the T.G. Sets what was wrong with that, what loss was caused to PSPCL? To my mind, none. So what is the brouhaha about and pressed so vehemently by Mr Chaudhary, though he argued well. No ground is made out warranting interference with the order of the Ombudsman. This court in proceedings under Articles 226 or 227 does not sit in appeal over the decisions of quasi judicial or administrative authorities. It is the decision making process, which would come under scrutiny of this Court and not the decision itself. In the instant case, there is not even a semblance of an averment raised that the decision making process is vitiated by error. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.