JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by M/s B.R. Food & Health, Rampur and the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, against order dated 30.11.2019, passed by Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman in Appeal No. 02 of 2019, in a representation made under Regulation 28 of the HPERC (Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulation, 2013, against order dated 28.08.2019, passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum of HPSEBL, Shimla, which representation was decided by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman, in the following terms:- “ Electricity Ombudsman findings and order: After going through the applicant's contentions, reply of respondent, rejoinder other relevant documents and listening to arguments of counsels, it is quite clear that the applicant has not paid any undue electricity charges to the respondent. The amount of arrear, in question deposited by applicant (for the period 6/2010 to 5/2013), through instalments, is actually the unpaid energy charges which otherwise would have been deposited by the applicant, had it been correctly charged by respondent in the monthly bills. The respondents raised this demand only when Audit Parity pointed it out during their audit inspection. No doubt, the respondent raised the demand some what late but it cannot be denied that the applicant actually did consume the electricity (as recorded by electricity meter) and remained 'under billed' due to application of wrong multiplying facto (M.F). The meter reading was to be multiplied by 666 instead of 0.666. This wrong calculation of M.F is a mistake on the part of respondent, due to which this amount accumulated to a big "arrear amount." As such the demand raised by respondent is correct and the applicant has been charged for the actual consumption of electricity. Meanwhile, also the applicant deposited the entire amount including surcharge without any fuss and without agitating the matter. As for as issue of surcharge is concerned this could not have cropped up. had the respondents issued the correct monthly bills, but due to wrong calculation this accumulated to big arrear amount' The mistake was on the part of respondent, which could not issue the correct energy bills hence applicant should not suffer for this delay. As for as issue of surcharge is concerned this could not have cropped up. had the respondents issued the correct monthly bills, but due to wrong calculation this accumulated to big arrear amount' The mistake was on the part of respondent, which could not issue the correct energy bills hence applicant should not suffer for this delay. So, in view of above it is concluded that the respondent has raised the correct demand (for the actual amount of electricity consumed) and the same cannot be left unrecovered but at the same time the applicant cannot be burdened with levying surcharge for no fault on his part. Hence respondent Board may accord waiver for the surcharge levied. The compliance of the order be reported within a month from the issue of this order.” 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the order under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman does not suffers from any illegality. 3. In fact, as far as challenge thereto laid by M/s B.R. Food & Health, Rampur is concerned, suffice it to say that the grounds which now stand raised in the writ petition, were not put forth before the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman. This fact could also not be disputed by the learned counsel during the course of the arguments. 4. Be that as it may, in terms of the order that has been passed by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman, the Board has been called upon to waive the surcharge levied by it, by holding that the applicant before the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman cannot be burdened with levying surcharge, levy whereof was not attributable to the said party. In fact, it is evident from the record that there was an error in calculation for the period from June, 2010 to May, 2013, as far as calculation of energy charges were concerned, on account of a meter reading error which was committed on the part of the respondent-Board. 5. It is not in dispute that for the said period, the electricity bills as were claimed from the consumer were duly paid by the consumer to the Board. 6. 5. It is not in dispute that for the said period, the electricity bills as were claimed from the consumer were duly paid by the consumer to the Board. 6. That being the case, but obvious, in case, a mistake was committed and was realized subsequently and was later on rectified, which resulted in demand of certain arrears by the consumers, fault thereof cannot be attributed to the consumer and the consumer cannot be burdened with the levy of surcharge for delay in the demand of the said due. 7. Therefore, in the light of the above observations, as this Court does not finds any merit in the writ petitions preferred against the order, because Electricity Board cannot claim surcharge from the consumer for its own acts of omission and commission, the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Electricity Ombudsman is upheld and the petitions are dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 8. At this stage, the Court stands informed that the surcharge has also been deposited by the consumer with the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. It goes without saying that the surcharge will be adjusted against the future bills of the consumer in terms of the enabling provisions of H.P.Supply Code, 2009.