JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present writ petition is maintained by the petitioner against the respondents praying therein for the following substantive reliefs : “a) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned order dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure P-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) That the respondent may kindly be restrained from releasing the amount which is lying in deposit with the present petitioner.” 2. As per the petitioner, respondent No.1-company has electric commercial connections bearing Account No.CGC-43-C and CGC-36-C having connected load of 16.4 KW and 58.24 KW. It is averred in the petition that on 4.2.1998, Flying Squid of HPSEB, headed by Assistant Executive Engineer (E), Sub Division, Idgah, Shimla and Executive Engineer, Flying Squid, inspected the premises of respondent No.1, allegedly found the tempering with the electric meter aforementioned. The Flying Squid found that the electricity was used directly from mains by bye passing the recording of consumption meters installed there. Thereafter, the Flying Squid started the proceedings against respondent No.1 for theft of energy and immediately disconnected the electricity of both the meters aforementioned. As per instruction No.206 of H.P Sales Manual Provisional assessment was made on 4.2.1998. Thereafter, the Flying Squid also registered the criminal case against respondent No.1 in Police Station, Shimla, after investigation filed a challan, under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 against respondent No.1. The final assessment was made on 24.2.1998 and after calculating the same a demand for a sum of Rs. 9,91,776.75 was raised from respondent No.1, for the alleged theft of energy. Respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit before the learned Court below and later on before learned District & Sessions Judge, Shimla, to restore the electricity connection. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Shimla, vide its order dated 8.5.1998, directed the petitioner to restore the electricity connection of respondent No.1 after taking 50% of the assessed demand amount. Respondent No.1 deposited the half of the assessed amount with the petitioner on 8.5.1998. The electricity meters of respondent No.1 remained disconnected w.e.f. 4.2.1998 to 8.5.1998. Thereafter, respondent No.1 approached before this Court against the disconnection of the electrical meter bearing No.CGC-43-C and CGC-36-C, vide which the HPSEB will not disconnect the electric connection and respondent No.1 was ordered to deposit the remaining amount in four equal installments of rupees one lac. Respondent No.1 deposited the entire amount i.e. Rs. 9,99,775.76. Thereafter, respondent No.1 approached before this Court against the disconnection of the electrical meter bearing No.CGC-43-C and CGC-36-C, vide which the HPSEB will not disconnect the electric connection and respondent No.1 was ordered to deposit the remaining amount in four equal installments of rupees one lac. Respondent No.1 deposited the entire amount i.e. Rs. 9,99,775.76. Thereafter, criminal case was filed before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 1910 against respondent No.1, the same was decided on 1.7.2002 and respondent No.1 was acquitted from the charges of theft after giving him benefit of doubt. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Zonal Level Disputes Settlement Committee, Shimla. The Committee after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case decided the same on 4.1.2003 in favour of the petitioner and appeal of respondent No.1 was dismissed. Thereafter, respondent No.1 again approached this Court regarding his grievances, but in the meantime, the Government have created one Institution, namely, Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman (hereinafter referred to as =Ombudsman'), to settle the electricity disputes. Respondent No.2 was directed to decide the dispute within a stipulated period and the parties were also directed to approach respondent No.2 within a time bound manner. Respondent No.2 after hearing both the parties, decided the case, vide order dated 15.3.2010, in which the appeal of respondent No.1 was allowed. Respondent No.1 involved in the theft of electricity from the aforementioned electric meters w.e.f. 6/1996 to 1/1998 and during this period even in few months his consumption of unit was Nil. This fact has not been taken into consideration by respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order dated 15.3.2010. 3. In reply to the petition, respondent No.1 has taken preliminary objections that the present petition is neither competent nor maintainable on account of the act and conduct of the petitioner. The order passed by the learned Ombudsman, suffers from no illegality and irregularity. On merits, it is submitted that the Executive Engineer, City Electrical Division, Shimla, is neither competent nor authorized to file the present writ petition. It has been further submitted that the commercial electricity meter bearing Account Nos. CGC-43-C and CGC-36-C, having connected load of 16.4 KW and 58.2 KW, HPSEB was billing respondent No.1 on the basis of actual consumption/minimum monthly charges whichever was higher. It has been further submitted that the commercial electricity meter bearing Account Nos. CGC-43-C and CGC-36-C, having connected load of 16.4 KW and 58.2 KW, HPSEB was billing respondent No.1 on the basis of actual consumption/minimum monthly charges whichever was higher. The actual consumption was less with the minimum monthly charges so invariably respondent No.1 was billed on minimum monthly charges. After September 2001, have done away with monthly minimum charges and started billing on the actual consumption basis. Respondent No.1 has further submitted that bill raised for an amount of Rs. 9,99,775.76, is without any basis and illegal. It is further submitted that the challan regarding the theft was put before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, vide which respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charges of theft, vide judgment dated 1.7.2002. 4. Heard. 5. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 15.3.2010 passed by the learned Ombudsman, is without any reason and is based upon the judgment of learned Court below. He has further argued that the judgment is not binding upon the proceedings before the learned Ombudsman and the standard of proof in both is different. He has further argued that the order passed by the learned Ombudsman, is without any basis and unreasoned and so, the writ petition may be allowed and the case may be remanded back after taking afresh decision. 6. On the other hand, Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has argued that no appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of acquittal of respondent No.1 in the alleged electricity theft case and that order has attained finality. The order of learned Ombudsman, also suffers from no illegality and infirmity, as the same was passed after taking into consideration all the facts, which have come on record, to its true perspective. He has further argued that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that consumption of the Hotel of respondent No.1, is much lesser than the bills, which were being paid by respondent No.1 on the basis of minimum charges. He has further argued that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that consumption of the Hotel of respondent No.1, is much lesser than the bills, which were being paid by respondent No.1 on the basis of minimum charges. He has further argued that hotel was vacant during those days and due to the mischief of the neighbourers, false case has been made out against respondent No.1, when he was out of station because of winter season and hotel was totally unoccupied. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 9. As far as the case, under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act is concerned, there is no dispute that Satish Chand Sood/respondent No.1 has been acquitted by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, on 1.7.2002 and the judgment has attained finality. However, the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee, has held respondent No.1 defaulter and raised demand of Rs. 9,91,776.75 paise against Account No.CGC-43-C and CGC- 36-C. Thereafter, in appeal learned Ombudsman/respondent No.2, will gave its findings and has held as under : “As per record of the licensee, the petitioner has paid all the bills for supply of power to the licensee (including for the period when the meter in dispute remained disconnected from 4.2.1998 to 8.5.1998) and this amount of Rs. 9,91,776/- as raised by the licensee is a penal amount on account of theft as worked out on the basis of Instruction No.203 to 206 of the Sales Manual. As per demand notice dated 4.2.1998 & 24.2.1998, this amount has been raised by the licensee as additional penal amount on account of alleged theft which has not been proved as per decision of the Hon'ble Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, as referred above. Order of the Ombudsman : Keeping in view the foregoing deliberations, the amount of Rs. 9,91,776/- raised by the respondent Board through demand notice dated 4.2.1998/24.2.1998 is set aside and quashed and HPSEB is directed to refund this amount to the petitioner alongwith annual interest @ 9% as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court immediately but not later than one month from the date of this order. 9,91,776/- raised by the respondent Board through demand notice dated 4.2.1998/24.2.1998 is set aside and quashed and HPSEB is directed to refund this amount to the petitioner alongwith annual interest @ 9% as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court immediately but not later than one month from the date of this order. The compliance of the order may be reported to this office by both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent Board after one month of the issuance of this order.” 10. From the above, it is clear that the learned Ombudsman/respondent No.2 has decided the case against the petitioner simply on the ground that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, has held that the petitioner has failed to prove the theft, hence the demand notice, raised by the petitioner was set aside and petitioner was directed to refund the amount. This Court finds that the learned Ombudsman/respondent No.2 has erred taking the findings of acquittal in favour of respondent No.1, a sole ground to set aside the demand notice, as respondent No.2 has not given his reasoning for setting aside the demand notice. So, the findings of the learned Ombudsman/respondent No.2, vide its impugned order dated 15.3.2010, is quashed and set aside and respondent No.2 is directed to decide Case No.3 of 2009, afresh, within a period of two months from the date of first hearing. Parties are directed to appear before the Ombudsman/respondent No. 2 on 22nd December, 2016. Needless to say that the party against whom learned Ombudsman/respondent No.2 gives the findings shall be at liberty to approach the competent Court, as per law. 11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending application (s), if any.