( 2 ) THE petitioners who are the custodians of power supply to the State have challenged the order passed by the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar, vide Annexure-C.

( 3 ) FEW facts are required to be stated for the disposal of the petition. The petitioners' case is that the boaris a body corporate constituted under the pro visions of Section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 in exercise of the powers under Sections 49 and 79-J of the Regulations called K. E. B. Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988. They have statutory force. The 1st respondent herein had availed power supply for commercial purpose to run a flour- mill under the installation bearing R. R. No. MMP-6. The power supply availed by the 1st respondent is for commercial purpose. The installation of the 1st respondent was inspected by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), Vigilance Squad, Bidar and it was found that the 1st respondent was committing theft of electrical energy bypassing the meter and connecting directly to the mains by having two way switch. The Inspector Officer was prima-facie satisfied that the 1st respondent had committed theft of electrical energy disconnected the power supply on 28-10-2003. A mahazar was also drawn in this regard and a criminal case was registered against the 1st respondent in Crime No. 290/2003. The Inspecting Officer evaluated the loss to the petitioners at rs. 20,174/- and levied compounding fee of rs. 20,000/ -. A statutory notice was also issued to the 1st respondent inviting objections within a stipulated period of time and in the event of non-filing of objections, the 1 st respondent was asked to pay the amount demanded in the notice. Suffice it to say that the 1st respondent acknowledged the billing notice, but however, did not chose to rely to the said notice nor paid the back billing payment and also the compounding fee. The 1st respondent also did not choose to file an appeal before the appellate authority as the said demand was an appealable one under the provisions of Section 44. 01 of the code.

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent has filed a complaint under the provisions of Section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act. challenging the demand made by the petitioners herein. She also maintained an application in the said proceedings before the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Bidar for interim mandatory injunction not to disconnect the power supply to the installation bearing R. R. No. MMP-6 and also to handover the 5 hp motor of the 1st respondent which was seized on 28-10-2003 and also for damages of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The 1st respondent also filed an interlocutory application before the forum not to disconnect the power supply. According to the petitioners, it had already disconnected the power supply on the date of the inspection itself. The District Consumers Redressal Forum at Bidar under Annex- ure-C, the impugned order, on certain conditions directed the petitioners herein to restore the electricity supply, one of them being on deposit of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the petitioners as security amount. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

( 5 ) MR. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would primarily contend that the District Consumers Redressal Forum at Bidar lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He would submit that as the Consumer Forum lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the question of interim direction as per An-nexure-C is without jurisdiction. He would further submit that the power supply to the installation of the 1st respondent has been disconnected on the date of inspection itself and since then there is no power supply to the said installation. In the circumstances, he submits that once when it is found that the District Consumers Redressal forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself, the impugned order is liable to be interfered