JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), Alappuzha has come up with the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: The consumer, 2nd respondent, along with four others, constituted a trust by name Sevanam Medical and Educational Trust, Kattanam and is running a hospital. The said hospital had applied for electric connection and received the connection with the consumer No.13538. While so, the Assistant Executive Engineer of the KSEB issued a notice to the 2nd respondent/consumer intimating that, in the inspection conducted by the vigilance wing on 22.5.2015, it was found that the consumer was charged in a differential tariff and thus, an amount of Rs.2,85,891/-is due from him and hence directed the 2nd respondent/consumer to remit the aforesaid amount within seven days from 23.05.2015. Aggrieved by the said short assessment bill, the 2nd respondent consumer approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum of the KSEB, but, by order dated 8.7.2015, the complaint was rejected confirming the short assessment bill. Aggrieved by the rejection, the 2nd respondent approached the State Electricity Ombudsman and, the Electricity Ombudsman, by Ext.P4 order dated 30.11.2015, allowed the appeal and the short assessment bill was set aside. The petitioners were also directed to reclassify the consumer’s category with effect from the date of inspection as per Regulation 97(1) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2014. 3. Heard Sri. Nirmal S., the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in terms of Regulation 152 of the Electricity Supply Code 2014, the petitioners were entitled to issue the short assessment bill for a period of twenty four months. In the present case, according to the petitioners, the Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikode conducted a site inspection on 22.05.2015 and detected that the consumer was billed wrongly in tariff LT VI B instead of LT VI F. The tariff applicable to the private hospital category was reclassified from LT VI B to LT VIII as per tariff order dated 30.4.2013 of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Board order dated 03.6.2013 with effect from May 2013. The tariff was again changed from LT VIII to LT VI F by the Regulatory Commission by order dated 14.8.2014 and Board order dated 04.10.2014 with effect from August 2014. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to raise the short assessment bill for a period of twenty four months as provided under the Regulations. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/consumer would point out that the application given by the consumer was processed wrongly by the Kerala State Electricity Board and the consumer cannot be penalised for the said act. The mistake, if any, caused was apparently due to the latches on the side of the officers concerned and there is no misstatement or concealment of facts by the consumer. At any rate, tampering of the metre and also unauthorised use of the electric energy are not found against the 2nd respondent, consumer. In these circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the Electricity Ombudsman is perfectly justified and need not be interfered by this Court in the exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 7. The pointed question which requires attention of this Court is as to whether the K.S.E.B should be permitted to issue short assessment bill for the mistake committed by its officers in wrongly including the consumer in the tariff LT VI B instead of LT VIII and thereafter changed to LT VI F. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners had wrongly classified the 2nd respondent consumer as LT VI B instead of LT VIII initially and later changed to LT VI F. It is surprising to note that even after the order dated 30.4.2013 by the Regulatory Commission as well as the order passed by the Board on 3.6.2013, the tariff of the consumer was not changed from LT VI B to LT VIII. Thereafter, the tariff applicable to the private hospital was again changed to LT VIII to LT VI F as per the order of the Regulatory Commission on 14.08.2014 and consequential Board order dated 4.10.2014. The mistake in including the 2nd respondent consumer under a wrong tariff was detected only on 22.5.2015 when the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the 2nd respondent and immediately thereafter, the classification was made. 8. The mistake in including the 2nd respondent consumer under a wrong tariff was detected only on 22.5.2015 when the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the 2nd respondent and immediately thereafter, the classification was made. 8. Before answering the question which is raised before this Court it is apposite to extract Regulations 97 and 152 of the Electricity Supply Code 2014 which read as follows : 97. Suo motu reclassification of consumer category by the licensee:- (1) If it is found that a consumer has been wrongly classified in a particular category or the purpose of supply as mentioned in the agreement has changed or the consumption of power has exceeded the limit of that category as per the tariff order of the Commission or the category has changed consequent to a revision of tariff order, the licensee may suo motu reclassify the consumer under appropriate category." (2) The consumer shall be informed of the proposed reclassification through notice with a notice period of thirty days to file objections, if any. (3) The licensee after due consideration of the reply of the consumer, if any, may reclassify the consumer appropriately. (4) Arrear or excess charges shall be determined based on the actual period of wrong reclassification and the account of the consumer shall be suitably adjusted. (5) If the actual period of classification cannot be ascertained reasonably, the period shall be limited to a period of twelve months or a period from the date of last inspection of the installation of the consumer by the licensee whichever is shorter." Provided that in the case of reclassification consequent to change of the purpose of supply by the consumer without due authorisation, the licensee may examine each case and initiate proceedings under Section 126 of the Act if found necessary. 152. Anomalies attributable to the licensee which are detected at the premises of the consumer:- (1) Anomalies attributable to the licensee which are detected on inspection at the premises of the consumer, such as wrong application of multiplication factor, incorrect application of tariff by the licensee even while there is no change in the purpose of use of electricity by the consumer and inaccuracies in metering shall not attract provisions of Section 126 of the Act or of Section 135 of the Act. (2) In such cases, the amount of electricity charges short collected by the licensee, if any, shall only be realized from the consumer under normal tariff applicable to the period during which such anomalies persisted. (3) The amount of electricity charges short collected for the entire period during which such anomalies persisted, may be realized by the licensee without any interest: Provided that, if the period of such short collection due to the anomalies is not known or cannot be reliably assessed, the period of assessment of such short collection of electricity charges shall be limited to twelve months: Provided further that while assessing the period of such short collection the factors as specified in sub-regulation (8) of regulation 155 shall be considered: Provided also that realization of electricity charges short collected shall be limited for a maximum period of twenty four months, even if the period during which such anomaly persisted is found to be more than twenty four months." (4) The consumer may be given instalment facility by the licensee for a maximum period of twelve months for the remittance of such amount of short collection with interest at the bank rate as on the date of remittance of the amount of instalment. 9. Regulations 97 and 152 as extracted above applies in different contexts. Admittedly, only on 22.5.2015, the mistake in including the consumer under a wrong tariff was detected. On the same day, reclassification was made by the petitioners and accordingly the short assessment bill was raised. It is pertinent to note that before such reclassification was made, under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 97, the consumer should have been informed about the proposed reclassification by a prior notice of 30 days and inviting objections, if any. The facts before this Court evidences that no such notice was given to the 2nd respondent and, the petitioners straight away proceeded to reclassify the tariff of the 2nd respondent to LT VI F. Once such reclassification has been made, then the question is whether sub-regulation (5) of regulation 97 or Regulation 152 of the Electricity Supply Code would apply. 10. Apparently, a reading of the aforesaid Regulations show that there is a conflict. 10. Apparently, a reading of the aforesaid Regulations show that there is a conflict. Sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 97 provides that if the actual period of classification cannot be ascertained reasonably, the period shall be limited to twelve months or a period from the date of last inspection of the installation of the consumer by the licensee whichever is shorter. On the other hand, a reading of Regulation 152 shows that anomalies attributable to the licensee which are detected on inspection on the premises of the consumer such as wrong application of multiplication factor, incorrect application of tariff by the licensee even while there is no change for the purpose of use of electricity by the consumer and inaccuracies in metering shall not attract the provisions of Section 126 of the Act and Section 135 of the Act. Regulation 152 also provides that if the period of such short collection due to the anomalies is not known or cannot be reliably assessed, the period of assessment of such short collection of electricity charges shall be limited to twelve months. When the provisions of Regulations 97 and 152 are put together, it is seen that under sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 97, the actual period of classification could not be ascertained, then it is to be limited for the period of twelve months or from the date of last inspection whichever is shorter. However, coming to Regulation 152, the Board has got the power to claim the short assessed bill up to 24 months. The question would be as to how the inconsistency could be reconciled. 11. As stated above, it is an admitted case of the parties that there is no suppression of material facts on the side of the consumer while making the application for supply of electrical energy. The classification was purely due to the error on the side of the petitioners, namely the licensee. No doubt, a reading of Regulation 152 provides that any mistake on the part of the licensee attributable towards the wrong inclusion of the tariff, the short assessment could be claimed for a period of 24 months. The classification was purely due to the error on the side of the petitioners, namely the licensee. No doubt, a reading of Regulation 152 provides that any mistake on the part of the licensee attributable towards the wrong inclusion of the tariff, the short assessment could be claimed for a period of 24 months. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the officers of the petitioners were at total remiss in not detecting the mistake even after the tariff was changed for the first time in the year 2013 by order of the regulatory commission and later in the year 2014. It is only on 22.5.2015 that the petitioners noticed the mistake when the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the premises of the 2nd respondent. On detection of the apparent error, on the same day, the petitioners had reclassified the tariff of the 2nd respondent to LT VI F. Normally the reclassification ought to be done after notice to the consumer. However the Board proceeded to reclassify the tariff of the consumer on the same day. Having done so, necessarily sub regulation (5) of Regulation 97 have to be applied. This is more so when the Board had already exercised the power under Regulation 97 and reclassified the tariff of the consumer. Once such reclassification was done suo motu, the Board cannot fall back on to the provisions of Regulation 152 and raise the short assessment bill for 24 months relying on Regulation 152. 12. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors. vs. Rahmatullah Khan [ 2020 (4) SCC 650 ] to contend for the proposition that negligence on the part of the licensee which lead to short billing in the first instance and the rectification of the same after the mistake is detected is not covered by the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 56 of the Electricity Act consequently any claim so made by the licensee after the detection of the mistake may not fall within the mischief namely no sum due from any consumer under the section appearing in sub-section 2. 13. 13. This Court is afraid that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court may not apply to the facts of the present case and the judgment in Rahmatullah Khan (Supra) is clearly distinguishable from facts. 14. Coming back to the facts of this case, this Court has already found that the reclassification of the tariff of the 2nd respondent was done on 22.5.2015 itself and therefore, the petitioners cannot fall back on Regulation 152 and claim the short assessment bill for a period of twelve months or with twenty four months as the case may be. Therefore, the Electricity Ombudsman was perfectly justified in reversing the order passed by the consumer redressal forum of the K.S.E.B. 15. In the result, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petition. The order passed by the Electricity Ombudsman does not suffer from any arbitrariness or jurisdictional infirmity which necessitates this Court to exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed.