JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Challenge in petition is to the order dated 22/01/2016 passed by the learned Electricity Ombudsman/respondent no.2 in Representation No.100/2015 thereby setting aside the order dated 03/07/2015 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Nagpur. 3. The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated in brief as under : (i). Respondent no.1 is industrial consumer. On receipt of Electricity Bill dated 04/04/2015 for the month of March, 2015. Respondent no.1 filed a complaint before Internal Grievance Redressal Cell (IGRC) on 24/04/2015. The grievance of respondent no.1 before IGRC was that the factory premises were being billed at commercial tariff since beginning. As per the tariff order dated 12/09/2010, Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC for short) clarified that the consumer categorization should reflect the main purpose of the consumer premises and the offices of industries cannot be levied with commercial tariff. Respondent no.1 claimed difference between commercial tariff and industrial tariff for the period from January, 2010 to March, 2015 amounting to Rs.19,97,747/-. The complaint was rejected by IGRC on 29/04/2015 on the ground that cause of action arose in January, 2010 and in view of Clause 6.6 of the MERC (CGRF & EO) Regulations, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for short) complaint not being filed within time was barred by limitation. (ii). Being aggrieved by the order of IGRC, respondent no.1 filed grievance before the forum. Contention of respondent no.1 before the forum was that Clause 6.6 of Regulations does not apply to IGRC but it applies to forum and complaint was well within limitation. The forum dismissed the grievance of respondents. The order of forum was challenged by filing representation. Vide order dated 22/01/2016, representation came to be partly allowed and the order of forum was set aside. Petitioners have been directed to refund the difference between commercial tariff and industrial tariff in respect of office premises of respondent no.1 from 01/09/2010 to 31/03/2015 along with interest at the bank rate. It is this order, which is the subject matter of present petition. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent no.1 did not challenge the tariff from January, 2010 till 24/04/2015. According to the learned Counsel, cause of action for filing the complaint had arisen in January, 2010. It is this order, which is the subject matter of present petition. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent no.1 did not challenge the tariff from January, 2010 till 24/04/2015. According to the learned Counsel, cause of action for filing the complaint had arisen in January, 2010. Referring to Clause 6.6 of the Regulations, it is submitted that complaint being not filed within two years was barred by limitation and IGRC and forum have rightly held that the grievance of respondent no.1 was not within limitation. 5. The next submission on behalf of petitioner is that respondent no.1 no where pleaded that it's office was merely an administrative office and was not being used for sale of products manufactured. There were separate meters and the meter for office was also separate. The learned Counsel submits that in view of this, consumer was not entitled to any relief. 6. The principal question in the present petition is whether cause of action had arisen in January, 2010 or on rejection of the grievance by IGRC. In this connection, Clause 6.6 of the Regulations would be relevant and the same is reproduced here as under : “6.6 The forum shall not admit any grievance unless it is filed within two (2) years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.” 7. Learned Counsel for respondent no.1 placed reliance on decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & others in Writ Petition No.9455/2011 and submitted that cause of action for submitting grievance arose, when the IGRC rejected the grievance of complainant. 8. On careful perusal of Clause 6.6 of the Regulations and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, submission made on behalf of petitioner that cause of action arose in January, 2010 is unsustainable. Respondent no.1 filed complaint before IGRC on 24/04/2015. By its order dated 29/04/2015, IGRC rejected the grievance of respondent no.1. The order of IGRC was challenged before forum on 08/05/2015. It means from the date of rejection of complaint by IGRC, grievance was filed before the forum within a month i.e. on 08/05/2015,. In this background, respondent no.2 has rightly held that grievance of respondent no.1 was well within limitation, as cause of action has arisen from the date of rejection of grievance by IGRC. 9. It means from the date of rejection of complaint by IGRC, grievance was filed before the forum within a month i.e. on 08/05/2015,. In this background, respondent no.2 has rightly held that grievance of respondent no.1 was well within limitation, as cause of action has arisen from the date of rejection of grievance by IGRC. 9. Learned Counsel for petitioner then submitted that direction in the impugned order to pay interest is not in accordance with the Regulations. The petitioners have been directed to pay interest on the amount to be refunded at bank rate under Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act from 01/09/2010 till realization. Section 62(6) of the Electricity Act reads thus : “Section 62. (Determination of tariff) : (6) If any licensee or a generating company recovers a price or charge exceeding the tariff determined under this section, the excess amount shall be recoverable by the person who has paid such price or charge along with interest equivalent to the bank rate without prejudice to any other liability incurred by the licensee.” 10. From the careful reading of sub-section 6 of Section 62 of the Electricity Act, it is apparent that if the generating company recovers an excess amount from the consumer, the said amount shall be recoverable by consumer along with interest equivalent to the bank rate. From the communication dated 26/05/2015 by the Nodal Officer of petitioner addressed to the Member Secretary, Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Nagpur, copy of which was sent to respondent no.1, it can be seen that in view of MERC order dated 12/09/2010 and circular issued by the Director Operations, MSEDCL, new tariff came to be implemented with effect from 01/09/2010 and the commercial consumption in the factory premises was to be charged as per industrial tariff. The communication further indicates that excess amount collected would be refunded through next upcoming energy bills. In view of this, no fault can be found with the order allowing interest on the amount to be refunded to respondent no.1. 11. In the light of the above, it is clear that no jurisdictional error has occurred in the impugned order. Writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order : ORDER : (I). Writ Petition No.3997/2016 stands dismissed. (II). Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.