JUDGMENT : SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the CGRF, i.e. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, in Complaint Case No. 65 of 2015, M/s Sheel Chand Agro Oil Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Executive Engineer, UPCL as created under Sub-section (3) of Section 45 of the Electricity Act, 2003, whereby, on the basis of the sealing report dated 4th November, 2011, they have been harnessed upon a liability to recover the amount of Rs. 8,00,510/- by invoking Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act as well as the order of the Ombudsman dated 12.01.2016, passed in Representation No.22 of 2015, M/s Sheel Chand Agro Vs. the Executive Engineer, UPCL. 2. In the proceedings before the CGRF, the basic contention, which was agitated by the present petitioner was that the notice which has been issued by the respondent on 7th August, 2014, for recovering the aforesaid amount for the alleged slow meter reading for the year 2011-12, i.e. for September, October and November, 2011, the petitioner was liable to pay the said amount as claimed by sealing order dated 04.11.2011. 3. The contention of the petitioner was that since the notice of demand dated 7th August, 2014 was beyond a certain stipulated period as it was with regard to the period of consumption from September, October and November, 2011 and since the same being a recovery made after an expiry of two years period would not be tenable in view of the restriction imposed under Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. 4. Petitioner contends that after having received the notice showing the assessment for the period 1st September, 2011 to 3rd November, 2011, he had filed the protest petition on 15th September, 2014. When no decision was taken on the same, he has filed reminder by way of protest on 12th April, 2015. Yet again, it is the case of the petitioner that no decision was taken on the same. He, on 17th January, 2015, sent reminder whereby, he also raised his plea against the imposition of late payment surcharge. When no decision was taken on the same, he has filed reminder by way of protest on 12th April, 2015. Yet again, it is the case of the petitioner that no decision was taken on the same. He, on 17th January, 2015, sent reminder whereby, he also raised his plea against the imposition of late payment surcharge. In the last reminder, as submitted by the petitioner on 27th January, 2015, he has placed reliance on letter dated 29th December, 2014, written by the Executive Engineer, EDD Rudrapur to the Deputy Director, Audit, Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited, wherein, he has submitted that the assessment made against the petitioner for the period 1st September, 2011 to 3rd November, 2011, vide letter No. 4338 requesting the Deputy Director to set aside the notice dated 7th August, 2014. The Deputy Director, UPCL on 27th January, 2015 rejected the request made by the Executive Engineer on 29th December, 2014 and reiterated the notice of payment dated 7th August, 2014. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the basis of issuance of notice dated 7th August, 2014, has been the audit report as submitted, in which, it has reported that the meter as installed in the premise of the petitioner, since was reported to be recording a low reading for the month September, October and November, 2011, they have taken an average of July, August, and September, 2011, i.e period prior to it, as to be the basis for deriving the conclusion mentioned in the notice dated 7th August, 2014. 6. The learned CGRF, by the order dated 16th July, 2015, after considering the report paper No. 6/1, has considered the consumption pattern of September, October and November, 2011 and, while comparing it with July, August, and September, 2011, consumption has concluded that a pattern of consumption since being on the lower side, they have drawn a presumption that the meter was not operating properly, although, it is no once case that the meter in the premise of the petitioner was either tampered or seal was broken. Hence, it was only the consumption pattern only which has been taken to be as the basis for imposing the liability for recovering the sum of Rs.8,00,510/-by invoking Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. 7. Hence, it was only the consumption pattern only which has been taken to be as the basis for imposing the liability for recovering the sum of Rs.8,00,510/-by invoking Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act. 7. On a judicious scrutiny of the judgment rendered by the CGRF, it seems that as a matter of fact, a statutory body which has been created under the Act, which was dealing with the fixation of liability has not applied its mind at all. The reason being that except considering the rival contention raised by the parties, the CGRF itself has not contributed any rational or reasoning while harnessing the liability on the petitioner pertaining to the said amount. What is important herein is that if the order of the CGRF is yet again scrutinized, it has not considered at all the sealing report dated 4th November, 2011, as no finding has been recorded by CGRF on the propriety of the said judgment. 8. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the CGRF, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman too by the impugned order dated 12th January, 2016 has affirmed the order dated 16th July, 2015, passed by the CGRF and thereby reiterating the liability as proposed to be fixed on the petitioner by virtue of notice dated 7th August, 2014 issued by the respondent No. 2 for the pattern of low consumption of electricity as compared to the previous patter of meter reading. The Ombudsman in its judgment rendered on the representation of the petitioner which was registered as Representation No. 22 of 2015, primarily, in its finding, has based its reasoning on the sealing certificate dated 4th November, 2011 only. He remarks that he has taken into consideration the objection and the departmental audit committee’s report for coming to the conclusion, but, the fact remains that the reasoning for the judgment of the Ombudsman dated 12th January, 2016 is based on the sealing report dated 4th November, 2011 for which he remarks as under :- “Sealing certificate of 04.11.2011 mentions that meter was found defective and MRI was not being done and hence meter was replaced. Audit has pointed out that since the meter was defective and since MRI could not be done, as per Regulations, reliance has to be placed on the consumption pattern immediately prior to meter being found or reported defective.” 9. Audit has pointed out that since the meter was defective and since MRI could not be done, as per Regulations, reliance has to be placed on the consumption pattern immediately prior to meter being found or reported defective.” 9. He mentions that in the sealing certificate dated 4th November, 2011, the meter was found defective and MRI was not being done and, hence, it was replaced. Whereas, on scrutinizing the sealing report dated 04.11.2011, particularly, the entries made in the column 1 just runs contrary to the findings recorded by the Ombudsman, because it nowhere remarks or records any finding on the sealing report that the meter was found defective and MRI could not be done. 10. What column 4 remarks only is that the meter was replaced. Another reason which has been recorded by the Ombudsman while dealing with the consumption pattern from April to December, 2011, he has remarked that from September to October, 2011, there was a declining trend of consumption and, hence, he had arrived to a conclusion for imposing the liability as intended to be done by the notice dated 7th August, 2014. 11. On perusal of the judgment of the Ombudsman, though, at one place, it deals with the fact as pleaded by party, i.e. petitioner pertaining to the declining trend of consumption, but, yet again the Ombudsman has committed the same mistake as it has been committed by CGRF by not considering the rival contentions and recorded its finding based on material evidence and the rational behind it for coming to the derivative conclusion about the consumption pattern. 12. There is another aspect which is to be taken into consideration is that under the Regulations called as Uttarakhand Electricity Regulation, as published by virtue of a Notification dated 17th April, 2007, Regulations has been framed while exercising the power under Sections 118 read with 50 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Under Clause 3.1.4 which deals with the situation for assessing the liability of a consumer based on the lower trend of consumption, confers the power on the “licensee”. The licensee as defined under the Regulation has been defined as to be a licensee under Sections 12 and 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 13. Under Clause 3.1.4 which deals with the situation for assessing the liability of a consumer based on the lower trend of consumption, confers the power on the “licensee”. The licensee as defined under the Regulation has been defined as to be a licensee under Sections 12 and 14 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 13. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record by way of any pleading or by way of any document which could show that before the notice was issued, any conclusion was arrived at by the licensee about the lower trend of consumption or any exercise was undertaken through any expert agency/their body to come to a logical conclusion because the audit report cannot be treated as to be a substitute of discharging the responsibility given to the licensee under sub-Clause (3) of Clause 3.1.4. “(3) Where the licensee observes that current reading is lower than the previous reading (RDF), which is possibly due to current reading being less than actual, or previous reading be higher than actual or old meter having been replaced with new meter. Licensee shall investigate the matter within 15 days and meters found defective shall be replaced in 2 months else correction shall be made in the data base to set his record strainght.” 14. Here, since the entire action is based upon on the audit report, hence the same cannot be sustained as there is a procedural defect in computing the liability of the petitioner in pursuance to the notice dated 7th August, 2014, the entire procedure is faulted. 15. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.01.2016, passed by the Electricity Ombudsman, Uttarakhand in Representation No. 22 of 2015, as well as order dated 16.07.2015, passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kumaon Zone in Complaint No. 65 of 2015 are quashed. Without prejudicing the rights of the respondent to proceed afresh strictly in adherence to the Regulations or provisions of the Act. 16. It has been informed that as a consequence to this judgment, the mandatory deposit of ½ of the amount as determined by the notice dated 7th August, 2014 and as deposited by the petitioner in compliance or the order dated 27.04.2015 before the CGRF on 19.05.2015 that would be adjusted in any amount which is determined by the respondents as consequence of this judgment. No order as to costs.