learned Additional District Judge in 2007 and paid by the petitioner herein. The learned Ombudsman has also concluded that the respondent has been showing, continuously, the arrears in the bills of the petitioner since beginning but the petitioner has been making part payment of the bills leaving aside the arrears in most of the months in the previous years and thus the arrears were getting accumulated along with LPSC. This conclusion of the learned Ombudsman is after perusing the bills pertaining to the years 2003, 2004 and 2013-14. The learned Ombudsman had also considered the plea of the petitioner with regard to discrepancies in various bills on account of fluctuating amount of arrears and rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner has not paid the full amount of the bills in most of the months which is bound to have an effect on the arrears of the forthcoming bills. In fact, there is a finding of fact that in some of the months, the petitioner has paid the full current bill amount but has never paid the arrears reflected in the bills and hence never settled the bills fully which ought to change the amount of arrears in the subsequent bills. It is also the conclusion of the learned Ombudsman that the respondent has also given the benefit of pending dues of the DVB period to the petitioner while reconciling the account. Hence, the plea of discrepancies in the bills has been rejected. The learned Ombudsman had also concluded that the demand raised by the respondent for 1,55,189/- pertaining to the unbilled units charged as per the readings for the period May 07, 2013 to May 27, 2013 and 35,669/- pertaining to bill revision on account of tariff revision for the period August 07, 2011 to August 31, 2011 is in order. The Ombudsman was of the view that the petitioner has not submitted any document to substantiate its plea that the demand of `19,13,408/- is wrong and illegal.
