JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

Heard Mr. Deep Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners-State and Mr. Rohan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. On 02/03/2022 we had made the following order:

1. The records indicate that service is complete before admission. However, the respondent does not appeared in the matter.

2. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate points out that the issue raised in this petition is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and ors v/s. Rahamatullah Khan [(2020)4 SCC 650]

3. Accordingly, we direct fresh notice to the respondents, this time, indicating that this petition will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

4. In addition to the usual mode of service, private service is also permitted. The petitioner to file an affidavit of service.

5. Stand over to 05/04/2022.”

3. Accordingly, we issue Rule and make the Rule returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 06/06/2017 and 10/04/2018 made by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF), Government of Goa constituted under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (said Act).

5. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the respondent-consumer pointed out that the petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy of questioning the aforesaid orders before the Ombudsman in terms of Section 42 (6) of the said Act. Sections 42(6) and 42(7) of the said Act read as under :

“6) Any consumer, who is aggrieved by non-redressal of his grievances under sub-section (5), may make a representation for the redressal of his grievance to an authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission.

(7) The Ombudsman shall settle the grievance of the consumer within such time and in such manner as may be specified by the State Commission.”

6. From the aforesaid, it is quite clear that it is only the consumer who is aggrieved by the non-redressal of his grievances under sub-Section 5 of Section 42 of the said Act who has been given an opportunity to make a representation for redressal of his grievance to an Authority to be known as Ombudsman to be appointed or designated by the State Commission. Such an Ombudsman shall then settle the grievance of the consumer within such time and in such manner as may be specified by the State Commission. The petitioners in the present case are not the consumer. Therefore, there is no bar to our entertaining this petition based upon the objection now raised by the consumer.

7. Mr. Rohan Desai then submitted that this petition, insofar as it challenges the order dated 06/06/2017 is barred by delay and laches. He submits that the order dated 06/06/2017 had directed the petitioners to grant the consumer reasonable opportunity and thereafter decide the issue of multiplying factor and type of load is concerned and based thereon issue subsequent bills. He pointed out that the issue of bills already issued for the period between 2011 and 2016 was already concluded as barred by limitation. He submits that the petitioners, by misinterpreting this order dated 06/06/2017 attempted to reopen even the issue of the bills or demands which were already held by the CGRF as barred by limitation. He pointed out that the petitioners were therefore constrained to once again apply to the CGRF and CGRF was equally constrained to set aside the renewed demands of the petitioners by its order dated 10/04/2018. He submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioners' challenge to the earlier order dated 06/06/2017 was barred by delay and laches.

8. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate invited our attention to the averments in paragraphs 13 and 14 of this petition which read as follows:

“13. The Petitioners state that the first impugned Order was not challenged a