ORDER : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Dash, learned Counsel for the opposite party. The petitioner files this application seeking to quash the order dated 2.8.2012 passed by the Ombudsman-II, Bhubaneswar in Consumer Representation Case No. Omb (II) N-33 of 2012 vide Annexure-3 and further seeks for revise of the bill in Annexure-4 dated 22.11.2012 and also the so called bill bearing No. 176527 in Annexure-5. 2. Mr. D. Nayak, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that without application of mind the learned Ombudsman' has passed the impugned order in Annexure-3 dated 2.8.2012, therefore the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking for quashing of the same and also for revision of the bills in Annexures-4 and 5. 3. Mr. S.C. Dash, learned Counsel for the opposite party states that the fact finding authority after going through the records and after hearing the parties passed the order in Annexure-3, therefore this Court should not interfere with the same and as such the order so passed is in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no justifiable reasons to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Considering the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner has availed power supply in domestic category in the year, 1986 but for non-payment of electricity dues, the opposite party has issued a disconnection notice demanding Rs. 99,098/- for payment on 5.11.2012 and as such the said demand is under consideration before the Grievance Redressal Forum and the said forum after careful consideration of the grievance of the petitioner stated that there is no wrong with regard to the claim of the opposite party on account of consumption of electricity and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Ombudsman and in turn the Ombudsman after going through the materials available on record passed the following order:-- "A. The arrear electricity dues of the petitioner is to be considered as Rs. 4148/- upto the end of March, 1998. B. Bills from April 1998 to September 2000 is to recast by putting per. month average consumption of three succeeding billing cycles from October 2000 to March, 2001. 4148/- upto the end of March, 1998. B. Bills from April 1998 to September 2000 is to recast by putting per. month average consumption of three succeeding billing cycles from October 2000 to March, 2001. C. Bills from October 2000 to August 2002 is to be retained as it was. D. Bill from September, 2002 to April 2004 is to be recasted by putting per month average consumption of three preceding billing cycles (from January 2002 to August 2002 i.e. 1480-958/8 = 522/8= 55 units/month). E. Bills from May 2004 to October 2008 is to be re-casted by putting per month average consumption of the present meter from November 2008 to April 2012 (1.1. 12729-2/42 - 303 units/month). F. From November 2008 onwards bill are, to be retained as it was. The respondent is directed to revise the bills as per the conclusions made above and serve a copy along with its abstract to the petitioner within one month from the date of issue of this order and report compliance to this Forum within 45 days." 5. As it appears from the order passed by the Ombudsman, the benefit admissible to the petitioner has been extended instead of work out the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition without any reasons. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application. However, liberty is granted to the opposite party to work out the benefit to the petitioner in consonance with the order passed by the Ombudsman preferably within a period of two months and extend the benefit in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Disposed off.