JUDGMENT : PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 18.07.2011 as passed by the Ombudsman, West Bengal in GR Case No. W-495K of 2010 at the instance of the writ petitioner/WBSEDCL who is a licensee as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Act’ in short). By the said order the Ombudsman quashed a bill dated 20.08.2010 for Rs.27,39,222/- as raised by the said licensee upon the respondent no. 3/firm who is a consumer under Section 2(15) of the said Act. 2. Admittedly pursuant to an agreement dated 29.09.2008 as entered by and between the licensee and the consumer, the licensee had agreed to supply high voltage electricity to the respondent no. 3/consumer which deals with processing and dyeing of hosiery cloths. It is the case of the petitioner that electric connection was given at the premises of the respondent no. 3/consumer on 28.04.2009. Subsequently during inspection the technical representative of the licensee/writ petitioner noticed mismatch in the meter reading system and on 01.06.2009 in course of inspection defect was detected in the potential transformer (‘P.T’ in short). 3. According to the writ petitioner since the said P.T was under warranty the said P.T was taken out and subsequently the same was sent to the manufacturer and on 16.02.2010 the manufacturer replaced the said P.T which was again reinstalled in the premises of the respondent no. 3/consumer on 26.02.2010. 4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that in between 01.06.2009 to 26.02.2010 the writ petitioner /licensee had to raise provisional bill upon the respondent no. 3/consumer and after installation of the said P.T, on 20.08.2010 the writ petitioner/licensee raised a supplementary bill to the tune of Rs.27,39,422/- for the period May, 2009 to March, 2010 on the basis of average consumption succeeding three months after the reinstallation of the P.T. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said supplementary bill was raised as per the terms of the agreement dated 29.09.2008 as entered into by and between the writ petitioner/licensee and the respondent no. 3/consumer. 5. The respondent no. 3/consumer felt aggrieved with the raising of such bill dated 20.08.2010 for the sum of Rs. 27,39,222/- and they approached the Grievance Redressal Office of the writ petitioner. According to the respondent no. 3/consumer. 5. The respondent no. 3/consumer felt aggrieved with the raising of such bill dated 20.08.2010 for the sum of Rs. 27,39,222/- and they approached the Grievance Redressal Office of the writ petitioner. According to the respondent no. 3/consumer its grievance was not properly addressed for which he approached the Ombudsman which passed an order dated 18.07.2011 which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition. 6. In course of hearing Mr. Panja, learned advocate for the writ petitioner/licensee at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page nos.37 to 40 being Annexures ‘P’, ‘P2’ and ‘P3’ of the writ petition. It is submitted that from the aforesaid annexure being the copy of the meter card and the inspection report respectively it would reveal that the reading of the meter was found to be irregular and from the inspection report dated 01.06.2009 it would reveal that the P.T connected with the meter of the respondent no. 3 was found not functioning. Drawing attention to page nos. 41 and 42 of the writ petition it is further argued by Mr. Panja that from the communication of letters between the officials of the writ petitioner/licensee it would reveal that the said P.T was within the warranty which is why a decision was taken for sending the same to the manufacturer for its repairing and/or replacement. Drawing attention to page nos. 46 to 56 it is submitted that during the period between the withdrawal of P.T from the meter of the respondent no. 3 and till the date of reinstallation of the same in the meter provisional bill was raised upon the respondent no. 3/consumer which have been duly paid. 7. At this juncture Mr. Panja drawing attention to Clause 11 (3) of the agreement submits that the supplementary bill for Rs.27,39,222/- was drawn in accordance with the provisions of the said clause of the agreement. It is further submitted by Mr. Panja that the Ombudsman for no reason whatsoever came to a finding that the detection of faulty P.T by the writ petitioner/licensee was one sided and it was never informed to the respondent no. 3/consumer which caused serious prejudice to the respondent no. It is further submitted by Mr. Panja that the Ombudsman for no reason whatsoever came to a finding that the detection of faulty P.T by the writ petitioner/licensee was one sided and it was never informed to the respondent no. 3/consumer which caused serious prejudice to the respondent no. 3/consumer and therefore the said ombudsman wrongly held that the raising of the bill dated 20.08.2010 for Rs.27,39,222/- was faulty and not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and therefore directed the writ petitioner to draw the revised bill on the basis of three months consumption immediately preceding 16.02.2010. Mr. Panja further submits that while passing such order the ombudsman has failed to visualize that no revised bill could be raised on the basis of three months consumption immediately preceding 16.02.2010 since the P.T was installed in the meter of the consumer only on 16.02.2010 and therefore raising of bill preceding three months is next to impossible. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Panja, learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the ombudsman was not justified to disbelieve that the said P.T became non-functional which is evident from the annexures to the instant writ petition. 9. It is thus submitted by Mr. Panja that the finding of the ombudsman is without any basis and had got no logic at all. 10. Per contra Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3/consumer draws attention of this Court to the copy of the petition (annexure P16 of the writ petition) as submitted by the respondent no. 3/consumer to the ombudsman on 16.11.2010. It is submitted that before the ombudsman it is the specific case that the respondent no. 3/consumer was in total dark with regard to the alleged malfunctioning of the P.T which has been correctly noticed by the ombudsman. In course of his argument Mr. Sanyal submits further that relationship between the writ petitioner /licensee and the respondent no. 3/consumer is regulated by West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (Standards of Performance of Licensees Relating to Consumer Services) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Regulations of 2010’ in short). 11. Drawing attention to Clause 11 of the said Regulations of 2010 it is submitted that as per the said Regulations of 2010 there is a time limit for replacement of and/or rectification of the meter/metering system within a specified time. 11. Drawing attention to Clause 11 of the said Regulations of 2010 it is submitted that as per the said Regulations of 2010 there is a time limit for replacement of and/or rectification of the meter/metering system within a specified time. It is submitted further that even for the sake of argument if it is accepted that the P.T was not functioning in the meter of the respondent no. 3/consumer on account of inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioner/licensee in replacing and/or rectifying the said P.T the respondent no. 3/consumer cannot be penalized for the inaction on the part of the writ petitioner. 12. Drawing attention to the different annexures to the writ petition it is further argued by Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the respondent no. 3/consumer that at no material time the respondent no. 3/consumer was intimated with regard to the alleged non-functioning or malfunctioning of the P.T and the writ petitioner/licensee never informed that they were raising provisional bill on average basis on account of such defect. It is further submitted by Mr. Sanyal that from page no. 63 of the writ petition being a copy of the letter dated 14.05.2010 as written by the respondent no. 3/ consumer to the writ petitioner/licensee it would reveal that the bills for the period June, 2009 to April, 2010 were of different amount and thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that during the period 01.06.2009 to 26.02.2010 provisional bills were raised upon the respondent no. 3/consumer on average basis. 13. Drawing attention to Clause 3.6 of the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission ( Electricity Supply Code) Regulations, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulation of 2007’ in short) it is contended that the said Regulation clearly postulates as to how billing is to be done by a licensee for consumption of electricity in case of defect or defunct meter. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that the ombudsman in its order dated 18.07.2011 noticed the illegality in raising the bill in question and therefore rightly quashed the bill dated 20.08.2010 for Rs.27,39,222/- . Drawing attention to Section 57 of the said Act of 2003 it is further argued by Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the respondent no. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Sanyal that the ombudsman in its order dated 18.07.2011 noticed the illegality in raising the bill in question and therefore rightly quashed the bill dated 20.08.2010 for Rs.27,39,222/- . Drawing attention to Section 57 of the said Act of 2003 it is further argued by Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the respondent no. 3/consumer that the standard of performance of licensee as prescribed under the said Act of 2003 has not been followed for which serious prejudice has been caused to the respondent no. 3/consumer and therefore the ombudsman has rightly passed the aforementioned reasoned order dated 18.07.2011 pursuant to Clause 14 of the said Regulation of 2010. 15. Placing his reliance upon the three reported decisions namely: Swapan Kumar Pal vs. Achintya Kumar Nayak and Others, (2008) 1 SCC 379 : 2007 SCC Online SC 1259; State of NCT of Delhi and Another vs. Sanjeev @ Bitto, (2005) 5 SCC 181 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1025 : 2005 SCC Online SC 668 and West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. vs. Paul High Care Chemical Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2022 SCC Online Cal 4078. Mr. Sanyal submits before this Court that in absence of any legal error committed during decision making process a writ court is not expected to interfere with the merit of the decision under challenge like an appellate court. Mr. Sanyal thus submits that it is a fit case for dismissal of the instant writ petition. 16. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after giving due consideration over the rival contentions it appears to this Court that in its order dated 18.07.2011 the ombudsman found the under-mentioned three lacunas on the part of the writ petitioner/licensee namely: (i) The detection of the metering system as faulty is totally an one sided affair; (ii) During inspection when the meter was found not in order, recording of such fact on the meter card by the writ petitioner/licensee without intimation to the consumer cannot be considered for determination of the data detection of the defect especially when the same is disputed; (iii) The date of detection that the meter system was found defective on 18.05.2009 or 01.06.2009 as stated by the writ petitioner/licensee does not stand the test of scrutiny. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner/licensee before the ombudsman had placed their reliance upon the documents which has been annexed with the instant writ petition. From the noting of the representative of the writ petitioner/licensee on the meter card, from the copy of the inspection report, from the office note of the writ petitioner/licensee and from the letters exchanged between the writ petitioner/licensee and the manufacturer of the P.T it cannot be doubted that the said P.T became faulty soon after its installation. This Court is not in agreement with the ombudsman that such detection of fault cannot be considered to be genuine simply because it was not communicated to the respondent no. 3/ consumer. 17. In course of his submission Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate for the respondent no. 3/consumer though was very vocal with regard to the prejudice caused to the respondent no. 3/consumer for not giving intimation to his client by the writ petitioner/licensee but in considered view of this Court in its order dated 18.07.2011 the ombudsman was absolutely silent with regard to the alleged prejudice. 18. Sufficient materials have been placed before this Court that during the period 01.06.2019 to 26.02.2010 the writ petitioner/licensee raised provisional bill upon the respondent no. 3/consumer in absence of P.T in the metering system which in considered view of this Court is in conformity with Clause 11.3 of the agreement dated 29.09.2008 as entered into by and between the writ petitioner/licensee and the respondent no. 3/consumer. 19. At this juncture I would like to look to the provisions of Section 57 of the said Act of 2003 and the same is reproduced hereunder in verbatim: “57. Standards of performance of licensee: (1) The Appropriate Commission may, after consultation with the licensees and persons likely to be affected, specify standards of performance of a licensee or a class of licensees. (2) If a licensee fails to meet the standards specified under subsection (1), without prejudice to any penalty which may be imposed or prosecution initiated, he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the person affected as may be determined by the Appropriate Commission: Provided that before determination of compensation, the concerned licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) The compensation determined under sub-section (2) shall be paid by the concerned licensee within ninety days of such determination.” 20. (3) The compensation determined under sub-section (2) shall be paid by the concerned licensee within ninety days of such determination.” 20. For effective adjudication of the instant lis some provisions of the said Regulations of 2010 are also required to be looked into and those are as under: “11.0 Meter and Metering Equipment Complaints On receipt of a written complaint from a consumer or on detection by any licensee about burnt meter or faulty meter or accidental breakage of seals, where no tampering is suspected, the licensee shall take action as specified below, subject to compliance of all requisite formalities by the consumer. 11.1 Replacement of burnt out and other faulty meters/metering system where supply is not affected. In Urban areas – The meter shall be inspected within 3 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. In case of burnt out meter it shall be replaced within 3 working days from the date of inspection. In case the meter/metering system is found otherwise faulty the meter/metering system shall be tested and the same shall be replaced/rectified within 10 working days from the date of inspection. In Rural areas – The meter shall be inspected within 7 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. In case of burnt out meter it shall be replaced within 7 working days from the date of inspection. In case the meter/metering system is found otherwise faulty the meter/metering system shall be tested and the same shall be replaced/rectified within 20 working days from the date of inspection. For detection of faulty meters the licensee shall be guided by the limits of accuracy specified in the Central Electricity Authority (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006 read with the relevant Standards of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). ************************************** 14.0 Enforcement Mechanism: 14.1 Every licensee shall register every complaint regarding failure to maintain the standards of performance specified in these regulations and preferred by the consumers/ intending consumers affected for the said failure. The licensee shall also communicate a complaint number with date to the consumer/intending consumer who prefers such complaint as soon as possible, but not later than 7 working days from the date of receipt of the complaint. Moreover, the licensee shall inform the consumers/ intending consumer immediately regarding the action taken by the licensee to mitigate the problem/ grievance of the consumers/ intending consumer. Moreover, the licensee shall inform the consumers/ intending consumer immediately regarding the action taken by the licensee to mitigate the problem/ grievance of the consumers/ intending consumer. For this purpose the licensees shall maintain all necessary records consisting of all essential information regarding the consumer/ intending consumer concerned, the nature of his complaint and the necessary details of the latter. 14.2 Any consumer/ intending consumer who is affected by any failure of a licensee to meet the standards of performance, specified in these regulations, may submit a complaint to the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned of the licensee in the matter of the said failure of performance excluding the cases under sections 126, 127, 135, 136, 137, 138 and 139 of the Act. A consumer/an intending consumer may also submit an application to the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned of the licensee claiming compensation for such failure to perform and also for delay in reconnection with reference to the time limits specified in the Supply Code or order of any competent court of law or competent authority or for wrongful disconnection including disconnection under section 135 of the Act if it was wrongful. The Grievance Redressal Officer after receiving such complaint shall dispose of the same as per Regulations made under sub-sections (5) and (7) of section 42 of the Act. 14.3 If the affected consumer/ intending consumer is not satisfied with the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or does not receive any order from that Grievance Redressal Officer whom he has approached within the time specified in Regulations made under subsections (5) and (7) of section 42 of the Act, he may submit a written representation to the Ombudsman for settlement/redressal of his grievance and/or payment of compensation which the licensee is liable to pay to the affected consumer/ intending consumer for failure to meet the standards of performance in terms of these regulations. The working procedure for submitting such representation will be as per the regulations made under subsections (5) and (7) of section 42 of the Act. 14.4 The Ombudsman shall accept such representation and after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties of being heard pass reasoned and speaking settlement order in the matter of the grievance of consumer or affected consumer/ intending consumer and/or payment of compensation which the licensee is to pay to the affected consumer/ intending consumer in terms of these regulations. 14.4 The Ombudsman shall accept such representation and after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties of being heard pass reasoned and speaking settlement order in the matter of the grievance of consumer or affected consumer/ intending consumer and/or payment of compensation which the licensee is to pay to the affected consumer/ intending consumer in terms of these regulations. The working procedure for disposal of such representation will be as per Regulations made under sub-sections (5) and (7) of section 42 of the Act. 14.5 The licensee shall pay the compensation in cash/cheque/demand draft in favour of the affected consumer/ intending consumer as per order of the Grievance Redressal Officer or the order of the Ombudsman, as the case may be, within a period of thirty days from the date of such order. When such payment is made as per order of the Ombudsman the licensee shall send a report of compliance to the Ombudsman within 15 days from the date of compliance. In case of possible delay in complying with the order of Ombudsman, the licensee shall seek permission of the Ombudsman before expiry of thirty days. 15.0 Determination of compensation to be paid to the person affected for failure to meet the Standards of Performance by the licensee: If a licensee fails to meet the standards as specified against various service areas laid down in these regulations, he shall be liable to pay in addition to any other penalty which the licensee is liable to pay in terms of the Act or other regulations a compensation to the affected person as specified below: (a) Failure to comply with the time period as specified in regulations 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 and 12.0 of these regulations the compensation will be at the rate of Rs.500/- for each additional day of delay or part thereof. (b) Failure to comply with any other standard of performance as specified in regulations 9.0, 10.0 and 11.0, in these regulations except for wrongful disconnection and delay in reconnection - at the rate of Rs.500/- for each additional day/slab of time or part thereof, as the case may be, irrespective of whether the place is urban or rural. (c).................................... (d).................................... (e) ....................................” 21. (c).................................... (d).................................... (e) ....................................” 21. On perusal of Section 57 of the said Act read with the aforementioned clauses of the said Regulations of 2010 it reveals that in urban areas and in rural areas the licensee is duty bound to replace the faulty meter within ten working days and within seven working days respectively from the date of inspection . Clause 14 and Clause 15 of the said Regulation of 2010 postulates that failure to comply with the standard of performance as prescribed in Clause 11 of the said Regulations makes the licensee liable to pay penalty at the rate of Rs.500/- for each additional day. 22. Coming to the factual aspects of this case it reveals that after detection of the non-functioning of the P.T the same was removed on 01.06.2009 and the same was reinstalled after repairing on 26.02.2010 and therefore there occurred 240 days (approximately) on the part of the writ petitioner/licensee in replacing and/or rectifying the meter /metering system of the respondent no. 3/consumer. 23. Admittedly, for such delay the writ petitioner is liable to pay penalty at the rate of Rs.500/- for each additional day but such delay cannot in any way prevent the writ petitioner/licensee to raise supplementary bill on the basis of the terms of the agreement dated 29.09.2008 as entered into by and between the writ petitioner/licensee and the respondent no. 3/ consumer. Further materials have been placed before this Court that during the period of 01.06.2009 to 26.06.2010 (from the date of removal of P.T to the date of reinstallation of the P.T) the writ petitioner/licensee has raised provisional bill to which the respondent no. 3/consumer never objected and therefore it cannot be said that serious prejudice occurred to the respondent no. 3/consumer on account of raising of bill dated 20.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.27,39,222/- which in considered view of this Court is in conformity of Clause 11.3 of the agreement dated 29.09.2008. 24. This Court further finds gross error on the part of the ombudsman in directing the writ petitioner/licensee to raise supplementary bill on the basis of preceding three months from 16.02.2010 though sufficient materials have been placed before the said ombudsman that the reinstallation of P.T took place on 26.02.2010 and therefore raising of bill on the basis of average consumption of three months prior to the said date is no way possible. In further considered view of this Court the reported decision of Swapan Kumar Pal (supra) and State of NCT of Delhi and Another (supra) are no way helpful to the respondent no. 3/ consumer. On the contrary it helps the case of the writ petitioner/ licensee since this Court has noticed serious lapses on the part of the ombudsman in ignoring material documents which adversely affected the decision making process of the said ombudsman. 25. As a result the instant writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. All pending interim applications are also disposed of. 26. Consequently the order of the ombudsman dated 18.07.2011 as passed in GR Case no. W-495K of 2010 is hereby set aside. 27. Consequently the supplementary bill for the sum of Rs.27,86,705/- (since it was not paid within the due date) stands hereby revived. 28. The respondent no. 3/consumer is hereby directed to pay the said bill of Rs.27,86,705/- in four equal installments and the first such installment is to be paid by September 13, 2024, the second such installment is to be paid by November 14, 2024, the third installment is to be paid by December 20, 2024 and the last such installment is to be deposited by January 17, 2025. 29. It is made clear that in the event the respondent no. 3/consumer fails to pay any installment within the time specified by this Court the writ petitioner/licensee is at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the respondent no. 3/consumer. 30. Since the bill of Rs.27,86,705/- remained unpaid for a considerable length of time the writ petitioner/licensee is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8% p.a. 31. In view of such, liberty is given to the writ petitioner/ licensee to raise another supplementary bill regarding interest on the amount payable by the respondent no. 3/ consumer. In the event such bill on interest is raised the same shall have also to be paid by the respondent no. 3/consumer in four equal installments within a span of one year in equal four intervals from the date of receipt of such supplementary bill on interest. 32. Equal liberty is given to respondent no. 3/ consumer. In the event such bill on interest is raised the same shall have also to be paid by the respondent no. 3/consumer in four equal installments within a span of one year in equal four intervals from the date of receipt of such supplementary bill on interest. 32. Equal liberty is given to respondent no. 3/consumer to claim penalty from the writ petitioner/licensee for their failure to comply their obligation in replacing the P.T. within the time period under Clause 15 of the said Regulation of 2010 before the ombudsman and in the event such prayer is made, the ombudsman is directed to dispose of such claim in accordance with law within a month from the date of receipt of such claim after giving due opportunity of hearing both to the consumer and the licensee.